Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. R B M Stone Crusher

DRT19 Jul 2022OA/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DR T-I, Bengaluru allowed an Originating Application by HDFC Bank to recover dues of Rs.2.04 crore against three defendants (partnership firm, co-borrower, guarantor). Defendants were absent. The order sanctioned the application with interest and costs, authorizing sale of schedule property and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed with interest and costs. Liberty granted to sell schedule property and proceed against other assets. Recovery certificate to be issued upon calculation of final dues.

Hdfc Bank versus R B M Stone Crusher — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.^{I, KARNATAKA} AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 19th day of fuly, 2022

¶3

Present : Sri IMTIAZ ALI

Presiding Officer

oA5l2O22

BETWEEN:

HDFC BANK HD.,

OH Airport Road Branch

¶9

Kodihalli, Bangalore-S 60 0 1 7

¶10

(Represented by ib Manager and

¶11

Authorized Representative Sri Niranjan B)

APPLICANT

AND:

L. RBMStoneCrusher

Represented by its Partners

¶16

Sy.No.2 1 4, Meenanadoddi Village

¶17

Meenanadoddi Post, Shoolagiri

¶18

Krishnagiri-635 LL7

¶19

Tamil Nadu

¶20

Sri Narayanaswamy C

S/o. Sri Chinnappa

Aged about 56 years

No.L2B, Ward No.13

R.V. Garden, Petechamanahalli

¶25

Kolar-563 101

¶26

3. Sri Venkateshappa^K.S

¶27

S/o. Sri Subbanna

¶28

Aged about 45 years

¶29

No.2 3, Kshethranahalli,^Nellahalli New Chowdeshwaramma TemPle Kolar-563 \37

DEFENDANTS

OA.No.s/2022

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : S.A. Associates Defendants : Ex-parte

¶34

FINAL ORDER

¶35

The present 0A has been fibd by the Applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of DebE and Bankruptry Act, 7993, seeking recovery of money of Rs.2,04,09,744/(Rupees Two Crore Four Lakh Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four only) together with cos8, interest, etc.

¶36

The case of the Applicant Bank is that the Defendant No.1 is a Parbrership Firm under the name and styb of^"R B M Stone Crusher" as borrower and represented by its Parurers, Defendant No.Z as co-borrower and Defendant No.3 as guarantor had approached the Applicant Bank for grant of CEMID Equipment Loan. The Applicant Bank considered the request and sanctioned CEMID Equipment Loan of Rs.3,40,67,905/- and disbursed on 26.72.2078 for purchasing Equipment puzzolana 2s0TPH-3sT-Crusherand GECL Loan (Working Capital Term Loan) introduced by Government of India of Rs.47,55,000/- and was disbursed on 19.06.2020, in terms of the ban agreemenB. In order to secure the loans, the

¶37

OA.No.5/2022

¶38

Defendants have executed documenb, viz., Agreement for Loan and Guarantee, GECL Sanction Lettel Facility Cum

¶39

Hypothecation Agreement, Supplemental Letter of Continuing Guarantee etc.

¶40

Furthe[ the Defendanb have agreed to repay the above bans with variabh rate of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office / Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and keep the accounB regular by paying installrnents as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detaihd in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

¶41

The DefendanB after utilising the said bans have failed

¶42

¶43

and neglected to make the repayment of the bans due as agreed and Defendants have not serviced the interest thereon as per the terms and condition agreed by the Defendanb. The Applicant Bank has sent Legal Notice on 20.11.2027 to the DefendanB. In spite of receipt of Legal Notice, the Defendanb have failed to pay the oubtanding dues and hence the recovery process is initiated to recover the dues.

¶44

oA.No.5/2022

¶45

In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that DefendanE are liabb to^pay a total sum of Rs.Z,04,09,744/- (Rupees Two Crore Four Lakh Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four only).

¶46

After filing this OA, Summons were sent and served to all the Defendants through RPAD.^{When DefendanEwerecalled} out, DefendanE remained absent and^{placed as ex parte.}

¶47

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Manager,^Sri Sreenidhi S.N, has filed his affidavit by way of^evidenceand same was considered as evidence of^{AW.1 and marked at Ex.A1} and List of Documents^came to be^{markedat Ex.A2 and 10} documents came to be marked^{at Ex.A3 to 12.}

¶48

No evidence on behalfofthe Defendants.

¶49

Argumens of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff / Applicant Bank heard and perused the records of the case.

¶50

Following poin8 arise for my consideration:

¶51

OA.No.5/2022

¶52

1. Whether Plaintiff / Applicant Bank proves its case as conten&d in the plaint / application?

¶53

1. What Order?

¶54

tL. For the folbwing reasons, I answer the above-referred poinb in the following manner:

¶55

REASONS

¶56

t2. The Manager of the Applicant Bank came to be examined as AW.1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above-referred Ex.A3 to^{ALZ which} clearly establish the case of the Applicant Bank to allow the^present OA. Added to this, the Defendants have remained absent, hence it is to be construed that Defendants have admitted^{the entire} case pleaded by the Applicant Bank in the^{present OA.}

¶57

Therefore, for these reasons,^present OA is to be

¶58

allowed with costs as sought by the Applicant^Bank.

¶59

ORDER

¶60

Present OA stands allowed as^prayed for with interest and costs.

¶61

oA.No.5/2022

¶62

In the event of failure of the Defendants to pay the said OA amount, the Applicant Bank is at liberfy to sell the Schedule properry in accordance with law as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶63

In spite of sale of the schedule property, if the OA amount is not fully realised, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the person and other property of the Defendants in accordance with law.

¶64

Applicant Bank shall file latest Memo of Calculation of OA

¶65

amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by Defendants duly taking into account the amount/s, if any, paid by the Defendants and/or amount realised by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening period after filing the 0A, to enable the office to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be

¶66

paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.

¶67

Offlce is directed to issue Recovery Certificate as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA and do the needful as required

¶68

under the law forthwith.

¶69

OA.No.5/2022

¶70

The Office is directed to issue, as far as possible, free

¶71

copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶72

fDictated^{to the Stenographer, after its transcriptionand necessarycorrections,} signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 19th day of fuly, Z0ZZ)

¶73

rmu)ur

¶74

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶75

ANNEXURES

¶76

Witness Examined for the Applicant Bank: AW-1 : Sri Sreenidhi S.N Manager of Applicant Bank List of Documents Exhibited for the Aoplicant the Aoplicant Aoplicant Bank: Ex.A-1 : Affidavit of AW-lEx.A-2 : List of Documents Ex.A-3 to A-12 : 10 documents

¶77

List of Documents Exhibited for the Aoplicant the Aoplicant Aoplicant Bank:

¶78

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶79

Nil-

¶80

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶81

Nil-

¶82

..^lvu (rMrrAz trru PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶83

Hdfc Bank v. R B M Stone Crusher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. R B M Stone Crusher

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

South Indian Bank versus Salim Km

Jeevan Prashram Birje versus Union Bank of India

Shivanna P G versus Canara Bank

Smt Chellaboyana Sri Laxmi versus State Bank of India

Ramesh Vishram Tambe versus Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

Nagesh Mallesham Uppala versus Sahebrao Deshmukh Cooperative Bank Limited