Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/S. T. K. Enterprises

DRT20 Dec 2022OA/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed the applicant's original application. The court held that the bank established its case by examining the bank manager and producing documents. The defendants were jointly and severally liable to repay the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to jointly and severally pay Rs. 24,69,515.60 with interest @ 18% p.a. and allowed bank to proceed against mortgaged and other properties for realization.

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/S. T. K. Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2OrH DAy OF DECEMBER,2022

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

OA.No.3 ol2022

Between:

IDBI bank Limited,

Branch office at 3-101,

¶8

Kalpataru complex, Main road, Sattupalli, Khammam district -507 303.

¶9

Represented by its Dy. General Manager

¶10

Applicant

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

M/s. T.K. Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Akula Vayunandana Rao, shop no,53, TVR towers, Main road,

¶13

Sathupalli, Khammam dist^-507 303.

¶14

Sri AkulaVayunandana Rao, Aged major, occ: business Proprietor of M/s. T.K. Enterprises Flat no.110, TVR towers, Hanuman Nagar, Sathupalli, Khammam District - 507 303. TS.

¶15

Sri BandhamMuthya Ratnam,
Aged major, occ: business,
l4-L54, Ayyagari peta,
Sathupalli, Khammam
District - 507 303. T.S. Defendants
Counsel for the Parti :6-
For the Applicant tp Suresh Babu
For the Defendants Rao
fiazz $ 0t0:2fin :
-4,
Defendant 3

¶16

(oA.No.3/2022)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.24,69,515.6ops (Rupees Twenty four lakhs Sixty nine thousand Six hundred fifteen and paise Sixty only) with interest @ 18olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 represented by defendant no.2 availed cash credit facility of Rs.18.00 lakhs vide letter dated 25.02.20L6 and executed necessary loan documents i.e., demand^promissory note dated 29.02.2016, take delivery letter DPN dated 29.02.2016, continuing security letter, hypothecation cum loan agreement and letter of proprietorship dated 29.02.20L6. Defendant no.3 created charge over immovable property more fully described in schedule to OA. Defendants 2 & 3 stood as^guarantors for repayment of above loan and executed common guarantee deed dated 29.02.20t6. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of san-ctio-n,.,r:herEe_, th.€ applicant bank was constrained to classify 05.202L and issued demand legal ral requests and demands, the ding, Hence this OA.

¶20

(oA.No.3/2022)

¶21

Defendant No.3 called absent set exparte on 02.09.2022. Though Defendants no.1& 2 filed vakalath, did not file WS, hence the right of filing of WS was forfeited on L4.L0.2022.

¶22

Shri B, Raja Sekhar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.30.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶25

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.30. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established in the OA against the Defendants and to recover the claim made in the

¶26

.- i'\ .;E!

¶27

OA with future inter6st and :lX ^^ nrn 4n.r1

¶28

B. with costs, as under;

¶29

(oA.No.3/2022)

¶30

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.24,69,615.60ps (Rupees Twenty four lakhs Sixty nine thousand Six hundred fifteen and paise Sixty only) with interest @ 18o/o p.a from date of applicationtill realization.

¶31

The Applicant Bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 &3 and properties of Defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

iii) The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶34

iv) The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶35

certificate accordingly. 11. copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
)
sd/-
: zooECzm ?
TRT,IE COPY
(G. GOPTCHAND)
a
o-:.S-€,
.{ PRESIDING OFFICER
oit-t, as*-Rffirarl-lls1 cvoeaeaao' '
&*uW

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/S. T. K. Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/S. T. K. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Krishnarjuna Paraboiled Rice Mills P Ltd. versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Ms Rajiv Textiles and Ors. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Mrs Vaishali Wo Naresh Wasnik versus Orange City Housing Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Lakhan Lal Gupta

Canara Bank versus Trends Times

Hardik Manharlal Kotecha and Anr. versus India Resurgence Arc Private Limited