Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. Chetan Plastic Industries

DRT13 Oct 2023OA/135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Bank of India for recovery of a loan defaulted by respondents. The court found the bank established its claim and awarded the principal amount, interest, costs, and rights to proceed against hypothecated movables.

What did the court decide?

Reset to pay Rs. 94,99,719.54 with interest; allow sale of hypothecated movables; proceed against properties of defendants for realization; issue recovery certificate.

Bank of India versus M/S. Chetan Plastic Industries — Consumer Protection | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER OA,No.135 of 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

Bank of India, P.3.n.!^{office at Basheerbagh,} H.No.3-5-822 and 3_5_B22In, -G^ror19^{floor,Basheerbaghto} King Koti Main road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad _500 029. Kepresented by its constituted attorney

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Chetan plastic Industries, Represented by its proprietor Mr. Abhijit Sirigiri, male, ?.-taq^{us, Kakatiyanagar,} Ir4ehdipatnam, Hyderabaj, retangana _ 500 0OB.

¶8

Unit addresse:

¶9

6.-4-63/L Kattedan Main Road, p.a I I y Ra i I wa y r#tion, I_":: -r,-"1.:, xanga reddy district, Hyderabad !77. Telangana.

¶10

2, Mr. Abhijit Sirioiri f/o^{Satyanara!anaSirigiri,} Aged about 41 years, ? :a.-\q^{t us, Kakatiyanagar,} IVehdipatnam, Hyderabad', tetangana _ 500 OOB.

¶11

(oA.No.135/2023)

¶12

Prop of M/s. Chetan Plastic Industries Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the pa rties:

¶14

For the Applicant Smt P. Suseela

For the Defendants

Exparte

ORDER

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.g4,9g,719.S4ps (Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand seven hundred Nineteen and paise Fifty four only) with further interest @ 11,350/o p.a plus 2o/o p.a ds penar interest with monthry rests from date oF apprication ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No,1 is a firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no'2 avaired cash credit for a sum of Rs.75,00 rakhs for working capital and term loan for q.surn ffi.23.00 lakhs for purchase or machinery and equipment.-r, iri;r;iielfhqr."o tB.\ " te^lL r^rrr m r^.,orr oan were sanctioned against the cr^iy i ; 'eation of .^h.Ig_u of rrypoq$\ation of stocks and i .13^orT,* i &**r"

¶20

(OA.No.13sl2023)

¶21

books, Plant & Machinery of defendant firm as primary security as mentioned in the schedule to OA. The defendants executed promissory note, bearer letter, hypothecation cum loan agreement, letter of decraration, comprehensive agreement and MCLR agreement. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 3O.O}.2O2Z and issued legal notice dated 07 '7L'2022' Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶22

Defendants 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 06.09.2023.

¶23

Shri R. Sarat Kumar, Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as

¶24

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

¶25

to A, 15.

¶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

¶29

prayed for?

¶30

Defenda nts .u,,"0 "^on/"dT,.* u bstantiate the case of

¶31

the Appticant Bank, AW.{, officiat iithe A Bank was examined

¶32

'Q*sr-ry

¶33

(oA. No.13s/2023)

¶34

and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A,15. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶35

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

¶36

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.g4,9g ,7Lg.S4ps (Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand Seven hundred Nineteen and paise Fifty four only) with further interest @ 11.35o/o p.a plus from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶38

movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶39

the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and

¶40

properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm

¶41

towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

¶43

(oA.No.13S/2023)

¶44

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribec court on this the 13th day ", "J,%!!l

¶48

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶49

sd/-

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

--r.ffii,

Bank of India v. M/S. Chetan Plastic Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. Chetan Plastic Industries

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 Sri New Tech Readymix Concrete Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Mohan Babu Chepuri

State Bank of India versus M/S. Flagsquare Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India, versus Smt. Karanam Ramulamma

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vaggu Chinna Vittal

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Saras Enterprises