Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mysha Enterprises

DRT18 Feb 2025OA/347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA.No.347 of 2024, the Applicant Bank sought recovery of Rs.25.24 lakhs with interest and costs along with future interest for sale of hypothecated properties from Defendants. The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application, holding the bank established its claim and liable the Defendants to pay the sum with interest and costs of the OA.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA.No.347/2024; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,24,323 with interest @12.4% p.a. from date of application; prohibited proceeds against hypothecated properties; Recovery ce

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mysha Enterprises — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18rH DAy oF FEBRUARr,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

OA.No.347 of 2024

Between:

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch_II, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applica nt

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Mysha Enterprises, (Franchise of Glam Studios) lup^{Oy its proprietrix Ms. Khaiija} -herein Tul Kubra- the defendant no.2

¶10

7 -44/2, first floor, SuncityHeera SK Tower building, Hydershakote, Hyderabad _ 911

¶11

Ms. Khatijalul Kubra, D/o Sri K. Raghuram, aged 32 yrs, Occ: business and proprietrix oi Defendant no., 7-44/2, first floor, SuncityHeera SK Tower building, Hydershakote, Hyderabad _ 911

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the parties:

¶14

For the Applicant
Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma
For the Defendants
Ex pa rte
b-"<br>g IlFEB?rfr :

¶15

loA.347 /20241

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,24,323/_ (Rupees Twenty five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Three hundred and Twenty Three only) with contractual interest @ 12.4Oo/o p.awith monthly rests from date of apprication ti, the date of rearization and in default for sale of hypothecated properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 firm avaired term loan of Rs.22 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 2t.07.2023. To secure due repayment the defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 21.07.2023 and hypothecated the ail the saroon equipments, machines, accessories etc in favour of Appricant bank. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued regar notice dated 08.07.2024. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence

¶19

this OA.

¶20

Defenda cbw$m rte on 05.11.2024.

¶21

(oA.347 /2024)

¶22

sri JeebanMishra, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.7.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶25

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶26

prayed for?

¶27

7 ' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.7. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in ihe oA with future interest and costs.

¶28

B' In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.25,24,g23l_ (Rupees Twenty

¶29

five LakgBfFour Thousand Three hundred and rwenty Th ctual interest @ l2.4Oo/o p.afrom date of ap &".: lization . fll 7tr8 W*#

¶30

(oA.347 /2024)

¶31

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecated

¶32

properties as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of

¶33

the debt due.

¶34

The Appricant Bank is arso entited to proceecr against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶36

t2. The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribe( ir,t, *,e ls-n ;;; ;+d:r;;#"d by her, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶40

f-e<br>t j loFEBznas *
wr u rCD 4ldl

¶41

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

rRft coPY
W'("'-
^#*g,;rfiir

¶43

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mysha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mysha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/s. Ssr Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/s. Maruthi Oil Stores and Electrical Parts

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Rishabh Plastic

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Radha Krishna Farms

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vvflex Pack Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Htc Diet Corporation Private Limited