Allowed

Indian Bank v. Rays Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

DRT7 Sept 2023OA/109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a loan balance after auction proceeds were adjusted, holding defendants jointly and severally liable for the remaining dues with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay balance loan amount with future interest; permitting recovery against hypothecated assets and personal properties; directing issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Indian Bank versus Rays Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEN4BER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com.,^{L.LB. (Hons.), M.A} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 1O9 OF 2022

¶4

Indian Bank (formerly Allahabad Bank) Balanagar Branch Shanker Towers, A-30, Opp: IDPL Factory, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037. Rep by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Rays Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by lts Directors,

¶8

lYr. P. Slva Prasad & Mrs. P. Hanuma Kumari, 303, Pavani Avenue, Road No. 12, Somajiguda, Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad-500082.

¶9

Mr. Siva Prasad Palutla, S/o. Mr. Seetharamaiah, Aged: 65 Years, occ: Business, 103, RR Kuteer, Street No. 20, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029.

¶10

Mrs, P. Hanuma Kumari, Wo.^{Mr. P. Siva Prasad,} Aged: 63 Years, Occ: Business, 103, RR kuteer, Street No. 20, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-50o029.

¶11

...Defendants dw"

¶12

oA.NO,109/2022

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Mr. V. Raghu

:Exparte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 77,74,6341- from the defendants joinHy and severally with future interest @ 13.50o/o p.a. (inclusive 2olo penal interest) with monthly rests from 02.02.2022 til the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule assets.

¶19

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set exparte on 79.O4.2022 as called absent and no representation,

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined Shaily Varshney, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.19.

¶21

It is stated that pending OA schedule-B property was auctioned under SARFAESI Act at Rs. 7O,ZO,OOO/- and sale proceeds adjusted to loan account on O?.07.2022.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record,

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the balance claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule assets? /4*

¶25

¶26

oA.NO.109/2022

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.19 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to^pay the balance OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.109/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 77,74,634/- (-) Rs. 70,2O,ooo/appropriated to loan account on 07.O7.2022 with future interest @ 10.75olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of reallzation;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its balance debt;

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of lts balance dues;

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. /Ztttnt

¶33

gz '"frg

¶34

¶35

oA.NO.109/2022

¶36

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day ofSeptember,2023).

¶39

Ow* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Bank v. Rays Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Rays Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Shyam Food Products

Punjab National Bank versus Sushankar Roy

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kamalla Ailaiah

Bank of India versus Prakash Ananterbedhi Chandra Singh

Canara Bank versus Ms P K Choudhury and Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Suresh Bhagwandas Daswani versus Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited