Allowed

Bank of India v. Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

DRT21 Nov 2023OA/107/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Bank of India against three defendants for recovery of a Star Mortgage loan of Rs.40 lakhs with future interest and penal interest, holding the bank established its claim. Directors jointly and severally liable and recovery certificate issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.47,42,74.15 with future interest @10.65% p.a. and penal interest @2% p.a.; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; Recovery certificate

Bank of India versus Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.1O7 of 2023

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of India, Warangal Main Bra nch, Warangal district Represented by its constituted attorney

¶6

Ap p lica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Ramesh Gollapelly, s/o Ramaswamy, aged 51 years, occ: business, R/o 4-93 Parvathgiri mandal And village, Wardhannapet, Warangal - 506 365.

¶9

Smt Gollapelly Manjula, w/o Sri Ramesh Gollapelly, aged 44 years, occ: business, R/o 4-93 Parvathgiri mandal And village, Wardhannapet, Warangal - 506 365.

¶10

Sri S. Srinivas, s/o K. Kishan, aged 29 years, occ: business, R/o 7-44, Kotapalli village, Huzurabad mandal, Karimnagar.

¶11

Defendants
"'inh,
,l??
21N0v

¶12

(oA.No.107 of 2023)

¶13

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶14

For the Applicant

¶15

For the Defendants

¶16

Shri K.V. Nageswara Rao

¶17

Expa rte

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1, The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.47,L4,Z74.l5ps (Rupees Forty seven Lakhs fourteen thousand Seven hundred seventy four and paise fifteen only) with future interest @ 10.650/o p.a and penal interest @ 2o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedules "A (item 1 & 2) & B" to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants 1 and 2 availed Star Mortgage loan of Rs.40.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 28.O3.2017 and executed term loan agreement and multipurpose agreement, demand promissory note for Rs.40.00 lakhs. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement dated 28.O23.2Ol7.Defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of deposit s in respect of schedule A (item no.1 & 2) .2 created equ ita ble /'P f.i, mortgage of deposit of :^-deeds in te'spect edule B property by 2 ! Niju )nn^.ii

¶21

(OA.No.107 of 2023)

¶22

depositing gift setrement deed document no.6g of 2015 dated 77'Or'20L5 and defendants 1 & 2 jointry executed regd Memorandum of deposit of titre deeds document no.7427/2017 dated 28.03.2077. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 31.12.2019 and issued demand notice dated 06'01'2020. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants 1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 04.09.2023.

¶24

Sri B. Srinivas, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as

¶25

AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.18.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶28

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶29

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of
the Applicant Bank, AW.1,
icant Bank was examined
A.18. in view of the
i; /* 7 t,Nlu nn *
l:1^ ?
Ihfu
dp.,g
t:,.ti!;-'l' -r''.,-,.//-.,.-r.).,r" r. ri:-.!= _, ;-.
'... 1, -. , -..'..-'-I
'-.'":
'i : -' - -?'

¶30

(OA.No.107 of 2023)

¶31

above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defenclants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the crairn made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶32

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶33

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.47,L4,Z74.LSps (Rupees Forty seven Lakhs fourteen thousand Seven hundred seventy four and paise fifteen only) with future interest @ 10.650/o p.a and penal interest @ 2o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶34

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the schedule mentioned mortgaged properties as described in the Schedures "A (itemno,1&2)&B" to OA.

¶35

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

t2. The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶37

The Applicant shall fite a cost memo within two weeks from the date of

¶38

receipt of order.

¶39

64,q
P ffi'""r^
? 1 NAV n2?

¶40

(OA.No,107 of 2023)

¶41

14. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

15. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the p'A , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of Nov, 2023)

¶44

sd/-

¶45

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

fe<br>*
7 i iiov ?frn
I3-Y
Wry

¶47

tr:i!*

¶48

DR-7-^{I. l{ !'li} 'iiil^FnlO

Bank of India v. Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

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

State Bank of India versus M/S New Tech Abrasives

State Bank of India versus Sri. Anishetty Prabhakar

State Bank of India versus Ms Aishwarya Impex

Dundigal Hans Raj versus Tirumala Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Kotte Tirupathi

Sri Mansoor Ahmed versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited