Allowed

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Ms Varadhi Advertisers Pvt. Ltd.

DRT6 Feb 2023OA/116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal entertained an Original Application (OA) filed by South Indian Bank Limited for recovery of dues totaling over Rs. 13.22 crores against various respondents along with interest under CDSD and housing loan limits. The defendants were called absent and the bank established its claim. The Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the respondents to pay the recovered amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to pay the applicant bank a total sum of Rs. 13,22,35,676.50 along with specific interest rates and future interest until realization, and to file a cost sheet.

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Ms Varadhi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 6rH DAy oF FEBRUARY | 2o2g

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.116 ol2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

The South Indian Bank Limited, H.No.4-1-898, Lala II, Oasis Plaza, Tilak road, Abids, Hyderabad Represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Varadhi Advertisers Pvt Ltd, Represented by its Managing director, Sri Venkata Chilakalpudi^prasad Rao, H.No,IV-4, Dhruvatara apartments, Medinova Compound, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082.

¶9

Sri Venkata Chilakalpudi Prasad Rao, s/o Subba Rao, major, managing director, M/s. Varadhi Advertisers Pvt Ltd, Flat no.A-2, 1't floor, Premises No.6-3- 1219/1/5, Niharika splendour, street no,1, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

¶10

SmtChilakalpudi Shanta Kumari, w/o Venkata Chilakalpudi Prasad Rao, Executive D irector, major, M/s. Varadhi Advertisers Pvt Ltd, Flat no.A-2, 1't floor,

¶11

Premises No.6-3-1219/1/5, Niharika splendour, street no.1, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

¶12

*
0 E FES Z0Zl -

¶13

(oA.No.116/2022)

¶14

M/s. Hari Hara Telefilms pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing director, Sri Venkata Chilakalpudi^prasad Rao, H.No.IV-4, Dhruvatara apartments, Medinova Compound, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant

¶18

For the Defendants

¶19

Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana Exparte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for 'recovery of a total sum of Rs.13,22,35,676.sOps (Rupees Thirteen Crores Twenty two lakhs Thirty five thousand Six hundred Seventy Six and paise fifty only) from date of filing of OA till realization i.e.,

¶22

A) a sum of Rs.11,47,13,100.09ps underCCBD limit against defendants 1,2 and 3 with further interest @ 10.90% p.a with monthly rests and penal interest @ 2olo p.a;

¶23

B) a sum of Rs.29,26,564.58ps under housing loan limit against defendants 2 & 3 with further interest @ 10.55o/o p.a under term loan with penal interest @ 2olo F.a i

¶24

C) and a sum of Rs.1,45,96,011.83ps /- under CCBD Loanagainst defendants No.1 to @ Il.20o/o p.a from A 6r date of filing of dsiil^rhe on and in default for '^-i-r-r. .:1:' '-,,;;r: ,:,.^,:'

¶25

(oA.No.116/2022)

¶26

sale of hypothecated movables (item no.1 & 2) and mortgaged properties (item No.1 to 4as described in the schedule to OA.

¶27

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a private limited company and defendants 2 & 3 are directors of the D.1 company availed CCBD limit of Rs.700 lakhs in 2Ot2 and executed necessary loan documents on 31.05.2012. defendants 2& 3 stood as guarantors and executed necessary loan documents on 06.08.2014. Thereafter an additional limit of Rs,50.00 lakhs was availed by defendant no.1 and executed supplementary agreement of hypothecation on 19.09.2016 and thereafter additional limit of Rs.100 lakhs was availed by defendant no.1 and in total the CCBD limit was Rs.850 lakhs and BG limit of Rs.35.00 lakhs. Defendant no.1 hypothecated the hypothecation of available book debts and counter guarantee as fully described in the item no.1 of Schedule A as security to CCBD limit of Rs.925 lakhs. In addition to CCBD limit, the defendant no.3 availed housing loan of Rs.34.82 lakhs and executed necessary loan documents. Defendant no,4/ borrower availed CCBD limit of Rs.100 lakhs and defendants No.1 to 3 stood as guarantors to the said limit. In addition to primary security by way of h .^{on movable} properties, the defendants c mortgages plication Schedule B properties along 64itk fully 'irl t1 *l.ffiru hylo'"{ described in Sale deed no.2255lalfuS..Oated 18.03.1 later this

¶28

(OA.N0.116/2022)

¶29

property was released on 29.03.2022) by depositing relevant documents with an intention to create mortgage on said properties. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify ihe account as NpA on 29.OL.ZOtg,L4.O7.2el9 and L2.10.2079 respectively. The applicant bank also issued guarantee invocation notices and recall notices dated 08.07 .2Ol9,lS.l .2}lg and 05.12.2019. The Applicant bank issued demand notice dated 16.08.2019 and possession notice dated 02.11.2019. Subsequently, the Applicant bank issued demand notice to defendant no.4 on t7.02.2020. Challenging the proceedings of Applicant bank, the defendant no.1 filed SA.NI.427/2019 suffered conditional stay order and failed to remit any amount, hence the bank proceeded with physical possession of properties. The defendant no.1 also filed WP.No.B27Bl2020 and 10650/2020 and WP.No.8278/2020 was disposed off by Hon'ble High Court on 22.0L.2021. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 09.t1.2022.

¶31

Shri B. Ramesh Chakravarthy, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhitiitr. t] levant documents, which .'1, . are marked as Ex.At1 to 4-.56. During pendency of OA, the Applicant bank proceed& irfi&Et AES Act and sold item no.2 Jr .' :.J .i, ,'/./

¶32

(oA.No.116/2022)

¶33

of Appllcation B schedule property for Rs.59,gg,OOO/- and the sale proceeds have been credited to loan account.

¶34

Heard th: Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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?

¶36

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.56. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶37

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

¶38

The Def:^-drnts are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.13,22,35,576.50ps (Rupees Thirteen

¶39

Crores Tyr:nty two lakhs Thirty fivgftho$Bh&BiNhundred

¶40

sevent... e'y and paise fifty ontn dko"," si,,,rftlM.,,, il-a \ iir^{o 6 FFB rilD _.,i} i,1o" "d '^;;t+P

¶41

(oA.No.116/2022)

¶42

realization LESS a sum of Rs.59,ggr0OO/- recovered by sale of item no.2 of schedule B propertyi.e.,

¶43

a) a sum of Rs,11,47,13,100.09ps under CCBD limit against defendants 1,2 and 3 with further interest @ 10.80o/o p.a;

¶44

b) a s,.:r-,r of Rs.29,26,564.58ps under housing loan limit against def,.ndants 2 & 3 with further interest @ 10.55o/o p.a under term loan ;

¶45

c) an:!^- sum of Rs.1,45,96,011.83ps /- under CCBD Loanagainst def:riants No.1 to 4with further interest @ 11.20olo p.a from date cf filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶46

i) The^"-plicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypciirc ried movables (item No.1 & 2) of Schedule A and morr^,1-,,a.'l immovable properties (item No.1,3 and 4) of schedule B as^,-..-.16"d in the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

ii) the^,' "-:nt Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and l:^- ri'ties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant oo.1ar^{,t !'ir:ns} towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

iii) The r :cant Bank is entitled to the

¶49

/'j,:- - -'.,F,.i -91 iv) l[2 1r':-r114nt shall file a cost me Jpithin tn$,weeks dato ni 'eceipt of order. : oEriBTra : k--#

¶50

(oA.No.u6/2022)

¶51

Issue Re: very certificate accordingly.

¶52

11, Communi.,.:':€ d copy oF the crder tO the parties concerned.

¶53

(Dictated to t| '... transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this tlr, ,, 11.]y of Feb., 2023)

¶54

sdl-

¶55

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

t'
6 Ft8 ?tI/f

¶57

TRUE COPY asst.aeffiQl) .\RT.T, HYDERABAO.

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Ms Varadhi Advertisers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Ms Varadhi Advertisers Pvt. Ltd.

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

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Chinta Devi & Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Divyanshu Poultry Farm and Others

Manoj Kumar Chandel versus State Bank of India

Sheela Prakash Srivastava versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Bhavesh Agarbatti

Bank of India versus Ms Unibell Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. and Others