Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Ms Pallavi Traders

DRT17 Feb 2023OA/127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by IDBI Bank against four respondents for recovery of a defaulted loan of Rs.32 lakhs secured by properties. The bank proved its claim via evidence and the Tribunal held the respondents jointly liable.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs.32,52,007.33 with future interest and the court issued a recovery certificate.

Idbi Bank versus Ms Pallavi Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17rH DAy OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.127 ol2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

IDBI BanK Ltd, Kachiguda branch, Hyderabad, TS. Represented by its Recovery officer Cum AGM Mrs VandavasuSuneetha w/o V. Bhavanishankar, aged 42 yrs, R/o Hyderabad

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Pallavi Traders, Rep by its Prop. Mr. Pasam Srikanth, shop no.123, Sri Krupa Market, Malakpetganj, Opp Hanuman temple, Malakpet,

¶9

Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶10

Mr. Pasam Srikanth, s/o Sri Sailul, aged 42 yrs,

¶11

R/o H.No. 1-6-350, Phanigari Colony, Chaitanyapuri,

¶12

Saroornagar, Rangareddy - 60.

¶13

Sri Kunde Madhu,

¶14

S/o Late Rama Swamy, aged 53 yrs, R/o H.No.31-10, plot no.36, Narayanpuri colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 35,

¶15

Mr. AvadhutaJaganBabu, s/o Avadhuta Krishna, aged 38 yrs R/o H.No. 1-6 - 7l / 2, chaitanyapuri Colony, kothapet, Ranga Reddy -35.

¶16

1t rrn ?Wj
Defendants

¶17

(OA.No.127 of 2022)

¶18

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶19

Sri Srinivas Chitturu

¶20

Exparte

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.32r52roo7.33ps (Rupees Thirty two lakhs fifty two thousand and seven and paise thirty three only) with future interest @ 8.7lo/op.a plus penal interest with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 is proprietor of defendant no.1 availed overdraft facility with a limit of Rs.30.00 lakhs in 201B.To secure credit facilities, the defendants 1 & 2 executed demand promissory note, .30.00 lakhs, facility agreement and ". DP note, delive:ffi declaration curm, un ants 2 to 4 executed deed of guarantee dated 28.0 e limit was enhanced from Rs.3o.oo lakh.H ,o kl.og.ilQffi<ns t defendants 1 & 2 executed necessary nts3&4executedcommon

¶24

(OA.No.127 ot 2022\

¶25

guarantee agreement on 25.01.2019. The defendants availed additional facilities under working capital term toan under GECL with a limit of Rs.8,99,000/- aggregating the total limit to Rs.53.99 takhs on 08.06.2020. The credit facilities availed are secured by equitable mortgage of schedule properties belonging to defendants 3 & 4. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 3t.07.2021 and issued recall notice dated 02.0B.2021.Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 01 .02.2023.

¶27

SmtVandavasuSuneeta, Asst General Manager of the Applicant Bank examined hermself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.l to A.27.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counse! for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The point that arise is whether the Applicant Bank is
" . .irtft -..'_.a-)g {
entitled for the clbim'-madeirirl against the Defendants as
' '"r.: .t:,.r
r. -t
prayed for? "i;
.,-1 1t
.9.ir-ir d;i\ ! Lr I
3

¶30

(oA.No.127 of 2022)

¶31

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 she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to A.27. 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.

¶32

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.32,52,0o7.33ps (Rupees Thirty two lakhs fifty two thousand and seven and paise thirty three only) with future interest @ 8.7Oolop.afrom date of application till realization.

¶34

i) The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable properties as described in the schedule to OA towards .r.

¶35

realization of the debt due.

¶36

¶37

ii) the Appl #aant to proceed against the person *

¶38

and p "rl^{dr pdgrqpntr*r.2to4} and properties of defenda of the debt due.

¶39

iii)

¶40

(OA.No.127 of 2022)

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the L7h day of Feb., 2023)

¶45

sdl-

¶46

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

TRUE COPY
**ffi

¶48

Idbi Bank v. Ms Pallavi Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Ms Pallavi Traders

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

Jyoti Kumari versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Niva Eat Udyog and Others

Uco Bank versus M/s Ejaz Akiya Enterprises and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Fashion Dot Com and others

Uco Bank versus Vijay Kumar Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Chundra Kumar