Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Chetana Packing Industries

DRT1 Nov 2023OA/8/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debits Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application (OA) signed in Times in Dubai to recover a total sum of around 87.67 lakhs including cash credit, COVID term loan, and future interest with costs and penalty.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs.87,67,518.42 with future interest; order to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; issuance of recovery certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Chetana Packing Industries — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER'2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.O8 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Maredpally branch (E-Vijaya Bank) West Maredpally, Secunderabad Represented by its chief Manager Cum authorised offlcer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Chetana Packing Industries, Rep by its Partners

¶10

Mr. Prashanth Kumar, S/o Late

¶11

S. Gnaneshwar Rao,

¶12

Mr. S. Nishanth Kumar, S/o Late

¶13

S. Gnaneshwar Rao,

¶14

Smt M. Rajyalaxmi, W/o M, Manoj Kumar, at plot no.C/17, IDA, Uppal, Hyderabad - 72.

¶15

Mr, S. Prashanth Ku mar, s/o Sri late S. Gnaneshwar Rao,

¶16

aged about 44 year, occ: business, partner M/s. Chetana Packing Industries, R/o H.No.3-6-535/101, Raja Residency, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad - 500 027.

¶17

Mr. S, Nishanth Kumar, S/o Sri Late S. Gnaneshwar Rao, Aged about 42years, occ: business, Partner of M/s. Chetana Packing Industries, R/o H.No.3-6-535/101, Raja Residency,

¶18

(OA.No.08/2023)

¶19

Himayatnagar, Hyderabad - 500 027.

¶20

Mrs. M. Rajyalaxmi, w/o Mr. M.Manoj Kumar, aged about 37 years, occ: business, female, R/o 4-L24/L, plot no.1, sy.no.60/4&8, Swaroopnagar, Uppal, Hyderabad - 39.

¶21

Defenda nts

¶22

Counsel for the Parties:

¶23

For the Applicant

¶24

For the Defenda nts

¶25

Sri N. Manohar Reddy Expa rte

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,B7r67,51g.42ps (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven thousand Five hundred Eighteen and paise forty two only) i.e., Rs.86,56,5B5.B5ps in cash credit account with future interest @ 13.85o/o p.a (including penal interest) and a sum of Rs.1,10,932.57ps in covid term loan with future interest @ 10.35olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶28

As per that the

¶29

(oA.No.08/2023)

¶30

defendants 2 & 3 availed cash credit limit of Rs.95.00 lakhs and NFB limit of Rs.55,00,000/- in the name of "M/s. Chetana packaging Industries" on 23.09.2015. The defendants executed demand promissory note, letter of repayment, overdraft agreement and agreement for demand cash credit against hypothecation of stocks and book debts dated 23.09.2015. Defendants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors by extending personal guarantee on 23.09.2015. Defendant no.4 created mortgage over her immovable property in favour of applicant bank as security for repayment of loans and deposited original title deed no.2074l2006 dated 13.02.2006 registered at SRO, Uppal vide memorandum of deposit of title deed no.8765/2015 more fully described in the schedule "A". 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 and issued demand notice dated 06.07.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding.^{Hencethis OA.}

¶31

Defendants 1 to 4 called absent and set exparte on^01.09.2023'

¶32

Shri Ajay Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant^{Bank examined}

¶33

himself as AW.1 and exhibit ments, which are marked

as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

2[n ?
\l
,:9,//

(oA. No.08/2023)

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶38

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?

¶39

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.19. 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.

¶40

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

¶41

The Defendants No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the
Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.87,67,518.42ps (Rupees Eighty
Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven thousand Five hundred Eighteen and
paise forty two only) 1.e., Rs.86,56,585.B5ps in cash credit
account with future interest @ 13.85% p.a (including penal interest)
and a sum of Rs.1,10,932.57ps in covid term loan with future interest
@ 10.35% p.a from date of a pp_Jic_atiq1 till the date of realization ;
' .rl- ,JL,,::.i, -''r.t.",.. 'r''i'.'..
' ,l-f,
,ir' d,+ 'ntt
\1:
: *-i'r
014il0lJ 20zl :ii
{i-i
'- .-.T,/r
. itl -l-' 1:
' ;-ti'ri.:,.1-:-.- )1t I.;
..!1,:,: , "1.;i-'

¶42

(oA.No.08/2023)

¶43

The Applicant Bank is entitred to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing Iy.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of Nov, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

*
01 |l0ll 2m ?
\J.

TRI'3E^COPY DRT.I, ^",,$M,:ul,^H'DERA,BAD'

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Chetana Packing Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Chetana Packing Industries

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

State Bank of India versus Nakshatra Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Sri Chennaboina Naresh

State Bank of India, versus Sri v. Ram Mohan

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Dynamic Cables

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Parameshwara Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Rekha Automotives