Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ridhi Eye Care Centre

DRT20 Jan 2025OA/638/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad disposed of Original Application No. 638/2023. The respondent remained ex-parte. The court accepted the applicant bank's documentary evidence, held the respondent liable, and ordered payment of dues with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is ordered to pay Rs. 24,81,692/- with future interest at 8.15% p.a. and costs. The applicant bank is directed to file a cost memo and issue a recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Ridhi Eye Care Centre — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 2oth DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), lvl.A.

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application No: 638 OF 2023

¶5

State Bank of India., Small & lvledium Enterprises Centre, (SMEC), SBI Zonal Office Building, Patny Circle, Secu nderabad.. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶6

...Applica nt

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Rid hi Eye Care Centre, Rep by its Prop. Dr.Smt.Aluvula Padma, H. No.3- 119, Main Road, Opp Sri Palani Convention, Peerzadiguda, Medipally N4andal, Hyderabad - 500039.

¶9

...... Defenda nt

¶10

Cou nsel for the Applicant :M/s.M.P.Sanjay Defendants :Ex-parte

¶11

:Ex-parte

¶12

:: CLLD-LL ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.24,8t,692/- as on 16.05.2023 from the defendant with future interest @ 8.15olo p.a. with monthly rests from 16.05.2023 till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶14

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 14.06.2024 as called absent and no representation ,fu.n, U/^'1s"

¶15

OA.No.638/2023

¶16

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Jeeban Mishra, Manager as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.7 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.638/2023 ts allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.24,81,6921- as on 16.05.2023 with future interest @ 8.15o/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

6ffil*

oA'No'638/2023

B. The^{Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks} from^{the date of receipt of this Order'}

¶30

Issue^{Recovery Certificate accordingly'}

¶31

10 :,?fl*'l'i1':;f:'?#ltxi;'"i*:i::U$^{l;"Tj?f:ff:llil;'me n'ihen'ihe} the^{io'n daY or ranuary' 2o2s) '}

¶32

:"J:[ffi; "is Ow

¶33

^{me n'ihen'ihe} Ow rdrr(esnwnR^KorHE) 'pnestotuc oFFICER

State Bank of India v. Ridhi Eye Care Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ridhi Eye Care Centre

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sri Jagadeeswara Cotton Silk Twisting and Dying Unit

Yes Bank Limited versus Kalvacharla Narender

Union Bank of India versus M/S N Lakshmi Narayana and Co.