Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Rama Transport

DRT10 Nov 2023OA/229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by Canara Bank for principal and interest against a transport firm and its partners due to default on a term loan secured by hypothecation of a concrete mixer.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs.27,75,025.78 with interest; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties of defendants.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Transport — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.229 ol 2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

Canara Bank, Branch ofFice at Huzurabad, 13-76/t,t3-77,

¶5

Opp HDFC Bank, Warangal road, Huzurabad, Karimnagar, Telangana - 505 468.

¶6

Represented by its Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Rama Transport, Represented by its Managing partner Mr, Podeti Ramaswamy, aged 59 years,

¶10

Occ: business, H.No,3-65,

¶11

Ellanthakunta, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar, Telangana State-505 122.

¶12

Sri Podeti Ramaswamy, s/o Mr. Podeti Durgaiah,

¶13

aged about 59 years, occ: business, H.No.3-65, Ellanthakunta,

¶14

Jammikunta Mandal,

¶15

Ka rim naga r, Telangana state-505 122.

¶16

Smt Podeti laxmi, w/o Podeti Ramaswamy,

¶17

aged 47 years, occ: business,

¶18

H.No.3-65, Ellanthakunta, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar, Telangana state-505 122.

¶19

Defendants

¶20

lo^A.No.229 /20221

¶21

Counsel for the Parties:

¶22

For the Applicant

¶23

For the Defe nd a nts

¶24

: Smt Tarangini Pisipati : Sri J. Ramakrish na

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2l ,75,O25.7gps (Rupees Twenty

¶27

Seven Lakhs Seventy Five thousand and twenty five and paise seventy eight only) with interest @ 18o/o p.a with monthly rests from 25,06.2022 till the date of rearization and in default for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶28

As per the averments in the application, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant no.1 is a partnership firm represented by partners defendants 2 & 3 who are husband and wife. The defendants availed term loan for purpose of purchasing "Agro 4000 self loading concrete mixer" dated 12.O9.2OL7. The said facility is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle more specifically described in the schedule to OA. The defendant no.1 represented by defendants 2 & 3 executed letter evidencing execution of documents, guarantee agreement dated L6.12.2OL7. The charge of hypot ted was reg istered with CERSAI vide security inte and Asset ID: 200032401131. After av loa defendants failed * E^Nrjr/ 7rl4

¶29

lO^A.No.229 /20221

¶30

to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 24.12.2021 and issued recall notice dated 2L.O2.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶31

Shri J. Rama Krishna filed vakalath for Defendants but not filed WS. Hence the right of filing of WS was forfeited on 17.03.2023.

¶32

Shri E. Srinivas, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.26 (Except A.2,3,4 & A.6).

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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?

¶35

7 ' counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed wS. 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.26 (Except A.2,3,4 & A.6). In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant

¶36

Bank has established their ,OA^{aga inst the Defendants}

¶37

lOA.No.229/20221

¶38

and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made an the OA with future interest and costs.

¶39

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

¶40

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Fls,Zl,ZS,OZS.78ps (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Seventy Five thousand and twenty five and paise seventy eight only) with interest @ 1Bo/o p.a from 25.06.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶41

The Applicant Bank is entitred to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶42

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant No.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

The Applicant sharr fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date oF receipt of order.

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of ftre order to the parties concerned.

¶47

( nscribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Nov,2023)

¶48

sd/-

¶49

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFTCER TRUE COPY - t&@tr''

¶50

*i:i;,X:;';;#tq

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Rama Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Rama Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mr Rambabu Kasaraboina

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Star Industries

State Bank of India versus Mohd Kamar a Alam

State Bank of India versus Sri Shesharao Rathod

Bank of India versus M/S. Almalik Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Smt Sai Krupa Thummala