Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Sai Learners Valley Educations Pvt. Ltd.

DRT20 Dec 2023OA/166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originations Application filed by a bank against a company and its guarantors for recovery of a term loan and GECL amount with interest and for proceeding against hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.90,96,484 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movable property and properties of guarantors.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Sai Learners… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

(OA.No.155 of 2023)

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF DECEMBER'2023

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

OA.No.166 of 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Indian Overseas Bank, Adarshnagar Branch, 5-9-305A, Paigah Plaza building, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 063. Represented by its Asst. Gen Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Sai Learners Valley Educations Private Ltd.,

¶11

Regd office at Plot no.53,

¶12

H. No. 2- 17-76 / 2/ 41, Raghavendra Nagar, Uppal, Behind Vijaya Kanaka Durga temple, Hyderabad - 39.

¶13

SmtN u nsavath Sreela ksh m i, w/o (late) Nunsavath Srinivas, female, aged major, occ: director of M/s.Sai Learners Valley Educations Private Ltd., Plot no.53,

¶14

H.No.2- L7 -7 6 / 2/ 41, Raghavendra

¶15

Nagar, Uppal, Behind Vijaya Kanaka Durga temple, Hyderabad - 39.

¶16

SmtBhagyala ksh m iSrinivasa Naik, w/o Ramavath Srinivas Naik, female, major, occ: director of M/s. Sai Learners Valley Educations Pvt 509, road no.10, P Phase-2, Meerpet, Telangana State j Defendants * 0 IEC^,m-1 ? { (i i',,'

¶17

(OA.No.155 of 2023)

¶18

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri V. Satyanarayana For the Defendants Exparte

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.90,96,484l- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Nanety Six thousand Four hundred and Eighty four only) i.e., a sum of Rs.76,57,828.09 under term loan with further interest @ 10.35% p.a and a sum of Rs.14,38,656/- under GECL account with interest @ 7,85o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a Company represented by defendants 2 & 3 as guarantors availed term loan facility of Rs.60.00 lakhs vide credit sanction dated 13.04.2018. The defendant no.1 executed demand promissory note, term loan agreement, letter of undertaking and letter of hypothecation all dated 13.04.2018. Defendants 2 & 3

¶22

along with late Sri Nunsav ik stood as guarantors for y' d,:'i. !;,: r the defendant no.1 the loan availed by $ifedtant frr"-'l.^'l avaited GECL facitity ff* rTn"rr[F ,,r.rroo on 06.01.2021 and

¶23

(oA.No.166 of 2023)

¶24

executed necessary documents. 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 05.07.2021 and issued recall notice dated 17.07.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 06.11.2023.

¶26

Sri G. Suresh, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.25.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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?

¶29

Defendants 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.25, In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established ,;

¶30

their claim made in the 9r4f' dants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiu6atb made in the OA with t' .::

¶31

,..',

¶32

future interest and coSts. * i

¶33

(oA.No.166 of 2023)

¶34

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

¶35

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.9otg6,484l- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ninety six thousand Four hundred and Eighty four only) i.e., a sum of Rs.76,57,828.09 under term loan with further interest @ 10.35olo p.a and a sum of Rs.14,38,6s61- under GECL account with interest @ 7.85o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶36

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶37

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶38

and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 company towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶40

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

¶41

(OA,No.165 of 2023)

¶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 lgthday of Dec, 2023)

¶45

sdl-

¶46

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRES]DING OFFICER

¶47

c:in',YlL --=. ,i:i;i;:;;:;#---**

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Sai Learners Valley Educations Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Sai Learners Valley Educations 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

Similar cases

City Union Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Om Sai Cotton Ginning & Industries

Indian Bank versus M/S. Varsha Logistics

Indian Bank versus M/S Narahari Teja Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Shiva Ganapathi Traders (Borrower)

State Bank of India versus M/S. Chandra Hospitality Services

Indian Bank versus M/S Palaka Inder Kanth