Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sharadha Binders

DRT9 Oct 2023OA/184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of India's claim for recovery of sums due including cash credit, term loan, and FRL account along with interest and costs against the borrowers.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,04,75,265.98 (principal Rs. 22,11,749/-, term loan Rs. 81,47,190.40, FRL Rs. 7,16,326/-) with interest at 16% p.a. Recovery certificate issued.

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sharadha Binders — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 9rH DAy oF ocroBER, zo2g

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.184 of 2023

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of India, Azamabad branch, L-L-LB7 /A, Azamabad, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Constituted attorney

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri Sharadha Binders

¶9

Represented by its proprietor Mr. Agasty Shiva^prasad,

¶10

H.No.1-8-430 /20/A, Uma gardens, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Telangana - 500 020,

¶11

Mr. Agasty Shiva^prasad,

¶12

S/o A, Nageshwar Rao,

¶13

Aged 39 years, occ: business, male, H.No. 1-7-133l3, Risalagadda, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad,

¶14

Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO O2O.

¶15

Defenda nts

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant
Sri T. Ranadhir Singh
,,;,. .. - -. i.,
,,t'/ .a.:.1;. . _.. -' y'.. .. .
For the Defendants //t- iJ r. Expqfte'2\i.
'k
fr

osocl 2023 ?
; rO \r
,'d- -o .9 ...Yl
W,-*r#

¶18

(oA.No.184 of 2023)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of RS,L,O4,7S,Z65,9gps (Rupees One Crore Four Lakhs Seventy Five thousand Two hundred Sixty five and paise Ninety eight only) i,e., a sum of Rs.22,L1,749l_ in cash credit, a sum of Rs.81,47,190.40ps under term loan and a sum of Rs.7,16,326/- under FIRL account with interest @ 160/o p.a from date of application tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 represented by defendant no.2 avaired cash credit of Rs.15.00 rakhs, term roan of Rs.75.oo rakhs vide sanction letter dated 02.01.2019. The defendants executed demand promissory note for Rs.15.00 lakhs, bearer letter, confirmation letter, loan agreement cum murtipurpose document and retter of acknowredgement dated 02.01.2019. The defendants hypothecated the plant and machinery, stock and book debts to the Appricant bank by executing hypothecation cum loan agreement dated 02.01.2019. During pandemic covid-1e, \21_ffi-ffiqted FrrL toan or Rs.eo,173land executed necesspr".rffi o".X*ifi1 After avaiting the toan i! " * ir : |]s^0cl,zrn 1, .4 \t

¶22

(OA.No.184 of 2023)

¶23

facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued regar notice dated 27.72.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶24

Defendants 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 03.08.2023.

¶25

Shri Prasada Babu, Asst. Manager of the Applicant Bank examined

¶26

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

¶27

as Ex.A.1 to A.29.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶30

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶31

prayed for?

¶32

7' 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 rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.29. 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

¶33

//k b\ ,,,t * :! o 93 0rI 209 : ....-.1"ffii,u

¶34

(0A.No.184 of 2023)

¶35

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

¶36

9, The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.!,O4,15,265.9gps (Rupees One Crore Four Lakhs Seventy Five thousand Two hundred Sixty five and paise Ninety eight only) i.e., a sum of Rs.22,I1,749/_ in cash credit, a sum of Rs.B1,47,190.40ps under term loan and a sum of Rs.l,76,326/- under FIRL account with interest @ 160lo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶38

mova bles 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

12, The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA. 13. The Appricant sha' fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶43

(OA.No.184 of 2023)

¶44

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of Oct, 2023)

sd/ -

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

0 g 0cT 20n
),
Wrn"-$H

¶51

TittrE copy ,^"Wr,

Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sharadha Binders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sharadha Binders

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Yadagiri

Smt Ch Padmavathi versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gouri Narasimha Reddy

Bank of India versus M/S. S. v. Constructions

State Bank of India versus Ms Indira Poultry Farm

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vedanta Cosmecuticals