Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Himalaya Kirana Rice Oil Merchant

DRT15 Nov 2022OA/29/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DTR-1 Hyderabad allowed the bank's Order Application for recovery of a loan of approx. Rs. 1.43 Cr. The court held that the bank established its case through official witness examination and admitted documents. Relief granted for payment with interest and proceedings against mortgaged properties and persons.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs. 1.43 Cr with interest; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged properties and personal properties of respondents for realization; costs awarded.

Canara Bank versus Ms Himalaya Kirana Rice Oil… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 15rH DAy OF NOVEMBER,2022

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.29 ot 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

Canara bank, Hanamakonda branch, 2-5-39, water tank road, Near Naveena children hospital, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal district - 506 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Himalaya Kirana Rice Oil Merchant (Borrower) Prop. Madishetty Srinivas,

¶9

S/o M. Sadashivu,

¶10

No, 15-4-33 1, Kakathiya Theatre, Near Masjid,

¶11

SVN Road, Warangal - 506 001.

¶12

SriMadishetty Srinivas, s/o M. Sadashivu, aged major, occ: business, R/o H.No.13-1-101, Mattewada, Near Masjid, Warangal - 506 002.

¶13

MadishettyNagaraju, s/o M. Sadashivu, aged major, occ: business, R/o H.No.13-1-101, Mattewada, Near Masjid, Warangal - 506 002.

¶14

SmtMadishettyCh ila kam ma, w/o M. Sadashivu, aged major, occ: business,R/o H.No. 13-1-101, Mattewada, Near Masjid, Warangal - 506 002.

¶15

6n'ot ,,j-';+n):i
'J'- ,, , i)
%#

¶16

(oA.No.29l2022)

¶17

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶18

Dr. Shaik Faheemullah

¶19

Exparte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,43,Oo,766.ggps (Rupees One Crore Forty three lakhs Seven hundred Sixty six and paise Eighty eight onty) with interest @ t2^o/o p.afrom OL.OL.2O22 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendantsavailed credit facilities to micro and small enterprises for SOD limit of Rs.120 lakhs dated 15.07.2016 and to secure the above loan, the defendants executed various loan documents/ agreements and undertakings. To secure the said loan, defendant no.2/ mortgagor submitted letter handing over title deed of properties dated 15.09.2016. Defendant no.2 proprietor of Defendant no.1 firm executed confirmation of deposit of title deed. 'A;'f,-%r+ 3'\1gec u te d s u a ra n te e a s re e m e n t fo r d u e re p a y m e n t .#%r^{saia(l8un pr6Ufu to D.1. After avaitingthe toan facitity,the} * ,i.l:nrr *ii : oefohotlfft ffleo 6||compty the terms of sanction, hence the .i: .. .1 , rdFelicant^ban - ined to classify the account as NPA on 2 i:--:::--4;;;+,iV

¶23

(oA.No.29l2022)

¶24

31.03.2017 and issued demand notice dated 15.04.202L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 26.09.2022.

¶26

Shri Lokesh Bansal, Assistant Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.17.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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?

¶29

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.17. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established t$(&in mad.e in the OA against the Defendants and hence the

¶30

il* /ffiicant qink - is enlitled '-',t to recover the claim made in the OA with

¶31

'ⁱ Srtu^{rqi ntwnFgf,ro .":1i}

¶32

-1 ,-r t ii iilF,ttp^{result, the} is allowed with costs, as under: WrurtW^:

¶33

(0A.No.29/2022)

¶34

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.l,43,OO,76G.ggps (Rupees One Crore Forty three lakhs Seven hundred Sixty six and paise Eighty eight only) with interest @ t2^o/o p.a from Ot.Ot.2O22 till realization.

¶35

i) The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA for realization of the debt due.

¶36

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due,

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly,

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open day of Nov., 2022)

¶42

A
fy
*

¶43

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER -{'RUi: COPY

¶44

NAT.!. ,IY'ERABA

Canara Bank v. Ms Himalaya Kirana Rice Oil Merchant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Himalaya Kirana Rice Oil Merchant

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

Shri Sarabhai Nathabhai Budheliya versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Malkeet Singh

State Bank of India versus Shri Jatinder Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S.Balaji Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Y Siva Shankar Reddy

Jayeshbhai Gaurishankar Bhogayata and Anr. versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited