Allowed

Canara Bank v. M N R Engineering and Projects

DRT8 Aug 2023OA/152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a principal sum of Rs. 16.38 crore along with future interest and costs against defaulting borrower defendants, securing the claim via hypothecated and mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 16,38,28,313.17 along with future interest and costs; recovery certificate issued; bank entitled to proceed against assets.

Canara Bank versus M N R Engineering and Projects — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), 14.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 152 OF 2022

¶4

Canara Bank, MID Corporate Branch, Somajiguda, 6-3-1086, Vlsta Grand Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082, Rep by its Asst' General Manager'

¶5

......Appricant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s, MNR Engineering & Projects, (Formerly lvlallella Developers), Rep. by its l4anaging Partner, Sri M. Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Reddy, 301, Jyoti Bloom Apartment, Union Bank of India Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.

¶8

And also at:

¶9

No.54O, 17th Main, 4th Sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore-560102.

¶10

Sri lvl. Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Reddy, S/o. Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Managing Partner of M/s. MNR Engineering & Projects, Aged i 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. O. No. 30717,23'd Ctoss, 6th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-56OOO70. A4o

¶11

¶12

OA No.L52l2O22

¶13

Sri Narendra lv'l S/o. Sri Venkataramana M, Partner of M/s. MNR Engineering & projects Aged: 23 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 70-1,^yelakapalli, Ramaamudram, Nariganipalle, Chembakur, Chittor-517417.

¶14

Sri R. Srinivasulu S/o. Sri R. Venkatnaryana, Partner of M/s. MNR Engineering & projects, Aged: 46 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No.7-48, Boddu Rachanna Eedhi, Vampalle, Cuddapah-516329, A.P. State.

¶15

.......Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. A.V.S.S. Prasad Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-Parte

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 16,38,28,313.17ps i.e. Rs. tO,4A,7f,777/_ under OCC/ODBD 1 Limit, Rs. 2,26,66,374/- under OCC/ODBD 2 Limit, Rs. 92,50,3341- under COVID FITL Limit, Rs. 2,47,82,a44.77ps, under WCTL GECL Limit, Rs. 14,99,898/under CANAM VEHICLE Limit, and Rs. 7,57,206/- under MACHINERY LOAN Limit from the Defendants join y and severally with future interest @ 13.7Oo/o, @ 73.7Oo/o, @14.35o/o, @^9.50o/o , @ 9.90olo and @ 11.35o/o p.a. respectively with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of

)tfop-.",,^_.t..-

OA No.152/2022

realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule assets.

¶23

Summons served on D1 & 4 through paper publication, whereas summons of D2 & 3 served. The defendants were set exparte on 05.O9.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined D. Shiva Krishna, Officer Manager as AW-1 and marked 33 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A. 33.

¶25

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

¶26

5, The point that arises for consideration is:

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA Schedule assets?

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte, The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.33 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the defendant are joinuy and severally to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. ,fu<-

¶29

,fu<'-'"*'E-

¶30

oA^No.152/2022

¶31

Intheresult,thepresentoriginalApplicationNo'152/2022is allowed^{as under:-}

¶32

The^{Defendantsare jointly and severally}

¶33

i) liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs' 16,38,28'313^{' 17ps ie' Rs' LO'4a'7L'717l'} under occ/oDBD^{1 Limit' Rs' 2} '26 '66 '3741' under^{OCC/ODBD 2 Limit' Rs 92'50'3341'} Rs'

¶34

under^{COVID FITL Limit'} 2,47 $2,844 '17^ps '^{under WCTLGECLLimit'} Rs. 14,99,898/-^{under CANARA VEHICLE} Limit,^{and Rs' 7} '57 '2061-^{under MACHINERY} LOAN^{Limit with future interest @ 11 30o/o} p'a' simple^{from the date if applicationtill the} date of^realization;

¶35

the OA^{claim issecured bY way of}

¶36

ii) hypothecated/mortgage^{of assets described} in the^{OA schedules and the aPplicant bank} is entitled^{to proceedagainst the same to} realise its^debt;

¶37

iii) the applicant^{bank is also entitledto proceed} against the^{person and propertiesof} defendants^{for realization of its dues;}

¶38

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitled for the costs'} r 4,Y4+t^,_ /4.:

¶39

OA No.t52/2022

¶40

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost i4emo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. {Didated to the steno, corrected, signed ano pronounced by me rn the open coun on this the 8'" day of August, 2023) .

¶43

Aw* (MMESHWAR KOTHE) pnesloltrtc orncei

Canara Bank v. M N R Engineering and Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M N R Engineering and Projects

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

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Sharmistha Deb Purkayastha

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Madesiya Building Materials

Union Bank of India versus Shri Purshottam

State Bank of India versus Shree Automobiles Private Limited

City Union Bank Limited versus Sky High Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Nuthanapati Chithambar