Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Usha Telecom

DRT13 Feb 2025OA/715/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application filed under S. 19 RDB Act to recover dues of Rs. 1,18,74,327 from the Defendants. The Defendants failed to appear despite legal notice. The Court granted interest and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1.18 crore with interest, injunction on disposing assets, and issuance of Recovery Certificate under S. 19(2) RDB Act.

State Bank of India versus Ms Usha Telecom — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JABALPU R

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'ble Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Original Application No. - 715/23

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 3'd Floor, ZonaL Office, Vijay Nagar, Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) Usha Tetecom, Prop.^-Smt. Komal Agrawal, Ward No.-16, Mahaveer Chowk, Balaghat (M.P.) 481001

¶9

Smt. Koma[ Agrawal,

¶10

W/o Shri Abhishek Agrawal,

¶11

R/o Ftat No.-30'l , Nirvana Residency, Sneh Nagar, Balaghat (M.P.)481001 Defendants

¶12

Counset for the Appticant : Shri Akhitesh Choubey, Advocate

¶13

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(oated :Tis r*t mary, zOzSl

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has filed the present Original Apptication u/s^'19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 76/05173 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,18,74,327.00^(Rupees One Crore, Eighteen Lakh, Seventy Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty Seven onty) along with interest and other reLiefs as stateci.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-l through its Proprietor Defendant No.-2, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Fund Based Limits-CC^(e-DFS) of Rs. 78 Lakh and^EDFS Adhoc Limit of Rs. 19 Lakh aggregating Rs. 97 Lakh on 30117/17 which was further renewed by way of Cash Credit of Rs. 90 Lakh on 27/08119, GECL of Rs.¹⁸ Lakh of 02/06/20 and Working CapitaI Term Loan under GECL^(New) of^Rs.9 Lakh on 04101 /22. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Defendant No.-2 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 for herself as^guaranlor have cxecuted requisite loan and guarantee documents. The Defendants availed the credit facitities but faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despjte tssuancc'of Legal Notices lastly^on

¶18

¶19

oA7t5l23

¶20

03105123 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-15 which were proved by Shri Ashwani Sharma, Chief Manager.

¶21

Despite st:rvice of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06/11124. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointly and severatly tiabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @8.80% p.a. with monthty rests in working capital account and interest @7.80% p.a. with monthly rests in both the GECL accounts, However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @8,80% p.a. simple in working capital account and interest @7.80y" p.a. simpte in both the GECL accounts pendentetite and future titl reatization of the dues. The personal properties and assets of the Defendants are liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due.

¶22

The Original Application is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶23

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severalty Rs. 1,18,74,327.00 (Rupees One Crore, Eiqhteen Lakh, Seventy Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty Seven only) together with pendentetite and future interest @8.80%^p.a. simple in working capital account and interest @7.80% p.a. simple in both the GECL accounts from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 26105/23, with costs til( its reatization.

¶24

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to setl the personal properties and assets of the Defendants for rdatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way dealing with their properties/ assets without first paying the claim of the Appticant Bank.

¶25

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(27) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The applicant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶26

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 13th Day of February, 2

¶27

.7 (Ram Niwas Patel) Presidinq Officer

State Bank of India v. Ms Usha Telecom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Usha Telecom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Tejpal Singh Rana

Icici Bank Limited versus Vishnu Prasad

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vahab Ali

Idbi Bank versus Gurmeet

Hdfc Bank versus Kunwar Pushpendra Singh

Idbi Bank versus Satyawan