Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/s Narasimha Traders

DRT21 Aug 2023OA/159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by IDBI Bank for recovery of dues of approximately Rs. 92.80 lakhs from a proprietorship firm and its guarantors who failed to repay an enhanced overdraft limit.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 92,80,672.84 plus interest; Entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property and assets of guarantors; Issue of Recovery Certificate.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/s Narasimha Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2IST DAY OF AUGUST' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.159 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

IDBI Bank Ltd, Branch office at 6-5-83/1, New bus stand road, Bhuktapur, Adilabad, Telangana Represented by its Asst. General Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Narasimha Traders

¶10

Represented by its proplietor P. Vaishali, H.No.4-2-341,

¶11

Ranisathiji road, Adilabad,

¶12

Telangana - 504 001.

¶13

Smt P. Vaishali,

¶14

w/o P. Sachin Kumar,

¶15

female, aged about 47 years,

¶16

Occ: business, r/o H.No.4-2-134/t,

¶17

Ward no.4, block no.2, Ranisath'rji

¶18

Road, Adilabad, Telangana- 504 OO1.

¶19

)

¶20

Smt P. Kalpana, W/o P. Ganesh, Female, aged 42 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.4-2-134/L, ward no.4,

¶21

Block no.2, Ranisathiji road,

¶22

Adilabad, Telangana - 504 OO1.

¶23

Sri P. Sachin Kumar, S/o P. Dattatreya, male,

¶24

d.
p
21AU6 ?.fr?J

¶25

(oA.1s9/2023)

¶26

Aged about 52 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.4-2-734/1, ward no.4, Block no.2, Ra nisathiji road, Adilabad, Telangana - 504 001.

¶27

Defenda nts

¶28

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶29

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶30

Sri K.P. Saradhi Exparte

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.92,80,672.g4ps (Rupees Ninety two Lakhs Eighty thousand Six hundred Seventy two and paise eighty four only) with interest at contractual rate @ 14.55o/o p.a with monthly rests plus additional interest @ 2o/o p.a from 0L.04.2023 till realization and in default for sale of mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶33

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm and defendants no.2 to 4 stood as guarantors. The defendant no.1 availed overdraft facility for

¶34

(oA.1s9/2023)

¶35

10.098.2014 in favour of applicant by deposit of title deeds in respect of immovable property more particularly mentioned in the schedule to OA. Subsequently the overdraft facility was renewed and enhanced existing limit of Rs.50.00 lakhs to revised limit of Rs,80.00 lakhs on 19.08.2015. To secure the loan, the defendants 2 & 3 created extension of mortgage on 15.06.2020 in favour of the Applicant bank. After availing the roan facirity, the defendants failed to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 28.10.2022 and issued demand notice on 31.10.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA,

¶36

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on t9,O7.2023.

¶37

Shri Abhishek Naini, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.40.

¶38

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶39

A The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is
entitled for the claim nt"o" '".|-.5t}ffinst the Defendants as
prayed for? .. 6'-''o'$F **.:N
! l# ii) ,' ,,,,
j
"!i
z 1 AU6 2o8 rii
;
?^ * .,s?.;:-;#
i-tiu,",rrtf.b-'7i"
.*97-'

¶40

(oA.1s9/2023)

¶41

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 who is the official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.40. 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.

¶42

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

¶43

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.92,8O,67Z.B4ps (Rupees Ninety two Lakhs Eighty thousand Six hundred Seventy two and paise eighty four only) with interest at contractual rate @ 14.55o/o p.a from 01.04.2023 till the date of realization.

¶44

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of its dues.

¶45

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

iii) The Applicant Bank is en osts of th e oA. ,6""$E,,',,/ , roArln 2m lli

¶47

.,;3'.,,.,uo"il$-{Y

¶48

Qry'

¶49

(o A.7s9/2023)

¶50

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

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate a ccord ing ly.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of Aug, 2023)

¶54

sd/-

¶55

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

. i '' f:\ .i-tn'
':'.:' }l
,,,i,
?1luBzm ?
d,'}
dI -o I9r
W;x;

¶57

-TRUE COPY

¶58

,*:'W:(^#'v

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/s Narasimha Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. M/s Narasimha 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

Indian Bank versus M/S. Yamjala Vimala

Ms Aarush Polymers Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Manikanta Mineral Water Plant

Indian Bank versus M/S. Siddhartha Logistics

Union Bank of India versus M/S. R.K. Distributors

State Bank of India versus Syed Sadiq Hussian