Allowed

Arcil v. M/S Slava Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd.

DRT20 Oct 2023OA/195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Originating Application for recovery of dues exceeding Rs.5.52 crores, including interest and costs, and issued a recovery certificate against mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs.5,52,61,660.09 with future interest; attachment order made absolute; recovery certificate issued.

Arcil versus M/S Slava Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PREsIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.19S of 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

Ind ia n Overseas Bank, Corporate branch at 5-1-664,665 & 669, Surabhi Arcade, Bank street, Koti, llyderabad, TS. Represented by its Asst. Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Slava Therapeutics Pvt ltd, 3'o floor, D.No. 15-29-1OOO/HIG-129, Room no.3B, 3'd floor, Pramani^plaza, Phase 1 & 2, KPHB colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 085.

¶9

Smt Sirisha Pilla, w/o Sri Mohan Krishna Gopinath, flat no.1004, 1Oth floor, Manjeera Trinity Homes, KPHB, Behind Manjeera Mall, Kukatpally, llyderabad - 500 072.

¶10

Smt Chelluri Sunila, w/o Sh. Chelluri Venkata Surya Satya Prasad, major, 5-9-51/80, Kalyan gardens, Near Shirdi Sai Baba Temple, Yapral, Alwal, Hyderabad - 500 094.

¶11

¶12

(OA.No.195 of 2022)

¶13

Sri Mohan Krishna Gopinath, s/o Sri T Gopinath, flat no.1OO4, 1 0"' f loor, Manjeera Trinity Homes, KPHB, Behind Manjeera Mall, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 5OO 072.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

For the Defendants

¶18

Sri G. Rangaiah G. Ram Babu

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.S,S2,61r66O.O9ps (Rupees Five Crores Fifty two Lakhs Sixty One thousand Six hundred Sixty and paise nine only) with future interest @ 10,05o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in the schedules "I & II" to OA,

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.1 is a Private Limited company availed cash credit for working capital for a sum of Rs.4,90,00,000/- vide sanction dated 16.03.2020. Defendant no.1 company .is represented by defendant . i. no.2 as its Managing director. and dei :1 \ nts 2,3 & 4 stood as .2L r;2oo[TZon i .',i:{fu'*4:;:"'

¶22

(OA.No.195 of 2022)

¶23

guarantors. The defendants 1 & 2 executed demand promissory note, letter of undertaking and letter of hypothecation dated 16.03.2020. The cash credit facility availed by defendant no.1 is primarily secured by hypothecation of stocks as described in Schedule-I of OA and mortgage of imrnovable property as described in schedule -II of oA. The defendants I & 2 executed memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 21.03.2020 bearing document no,45BS of 2020 creating mortgage of immovable property. 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 30.10.2021 and issued demand notice dated 02.11.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA,

¶24

Shri G, Ram Babu filed vakalath for Defendants 1 to 4 but not filed WS. l-lence the right of filing of wS was forfeited on 23.08 .2023.

¶25

Shri V. Sudarshan, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,L and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.25.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel

¶27

(OA.No.l.95 of 2022)

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed ws. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.25. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their clainr made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs,

¶31

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

¶32

The Defendants No.1 to 4 are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,52,61,66O.O9ps (Rupees Five Crores Fifty two Lakhs Sixty One thousand Six hundred Sixty and paise nine only) with future interest @ 10.05o/o p.a from date ol'application till the date of realization ;

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated mov able s..a s described in the schedule "I & II" to OA. '). , il ti

¶34

,4 .:i' i i - ;,

¶35

, -.!

¶36

. .^{a', :l .:;'} -.. .i.

¶37

---.'-:'

¶38

(OA.No.195 of ZO22)

¶39

11' 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.

¶40

t2, The order of attachment in IA.No. 1377/2022 dated 03.05.2023 in

¶41

respect of petition schedules "A & 8,, properties is made absolute. Include the said properties in the Recovery certificate.

¶42

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

¶43

t4. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of

¶44

receipt of order.

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

:3J::'i:'J:,tir'"tri;;^{tJil:?t..1, olo"ri;corrected,sisned and pronounced} by me in the open

¶48

sd/ -

¶49

(G. GOPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

TRI,'E^ GOPY

¶51

DRT- l, li'/ i: E,\ i I ;\ A.

Arcil v. M/S Slava Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arcil v. M/S Slava Therapeutics 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Madishetty Suresh

Mr Thota Murali Krishna versus National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.

City Union Bank Ltd, versus M/S. Sri Venkateswara Motors

State Bank of India versus Sr. Kolluru Prem Kumar

M S Sri Kalyana Chakravarthy Rice Mill versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt Dumpala Srilatha