Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Shiva Ganapathi Traders (Borrower)

DRT20 Dec 2023OA/285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank for repayment of Rs. 29,05,221.07 from the borrower and guarantors, noting their absence and establishing the claim through bank official testimony and documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 29,05,221.07 with interest; issued recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/S Shiva Ganapathi Traders (Borrower) — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 2OrH DAy OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.285 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Kazipet branch, Warangal district, TS. Represented by its authorlsed officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Shiva Ganapathi Traders (borrower) Represented by its prop. C. Srinivas,

¶10

S/o C. Esthari, aged 59 years,

¶11

Occ: business, # 16-5-267,l.)nder

¶12

.Bridge^{road,perukawada,}

¶13

Warangat - 506 OO2.

¶14

Sri C. Srinivas, S/o C. Esthari,

¶15

?1op; Vr.^{Shiva Ganapathi Traders,}

¶16

lg.gd !9^{years, occ:business,} H.No.3-1 15, Sangemmandal,

¶17

Gavicherla, Warangal - 506 310.

¶18

3, Sri V. _Y_ellaiah , s/o V. Rajaiah( guarantor) Aged 73 years, occ: business, H.No. 1 5-9- 1, Ramannapeta,

¶19

Warangal - 506 OO2.

¶20

Smt C. Kousalya, w / o 9 :Srinivas (guarantor)

¶21

aged 54 years, occ: business,

¶22

H.No.3-115, Sangem Mandal, Guvicherla, Warangal - 506 i10.,: n da nts

¶23

ftt*,#

¶24

(oA.No.28sl2022)

¶25

Counsel^{for the Parties:} For the^APPlicant ExParte For the^Defendants

¶26

Dr.ShaikFaheemullah

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for} recoveryofatotalsumofRs.}gps,22l.oTps(RupeesTwenw Nine Lakhs^{Five Thousand Two HundredTwentyOne and} paise Seven only)^{i.e., a sum of Rs'4,68'045'50ps in term loan} account with^{interest @ 9'25olop'a and a sum of Rs'24'37'L75'57ps} with interest @^{10'95o/o p.a from O1'05'2021till the date of} realization and^{in default for sale of hypothecated movablesand} mortgaged^{property as described in the schedule to OA'}

¶29

As^per the^{avermentsin the application, the ApplicantBankstates} that defendants^{availed loan limit ofRs'15'00 lakhs dated} 22.03.2016.Tosecuretherepaymentofaboveloanfacility,the defendants executed^{various loan documents/ agreementsand} undertakings.Defendantno.lfirmrepresentedbydefendantno.2, Proprietor executed^{compositehypothecationagreementdated} 22.03,2016,Defendants3&4executedguaranteeagreementfor due repayment of^{loan provided to defendant no'1dated} 24.03.2016. oerenoandfjio:+-,-,1Defendard;G4''i/ir$3[antor^{executed Regd} Memorandum of^{depostt ohltt" a""qr and'ig'fositedthe originalsale} ' i : ^ ' 't;r .,",;. 'B B,t.. f{J^:-o.nEcm t' ''^* llrn , t\b-) ..a ?/' \aq t, , ,t."",t'l_j

¶30

(oA.No.28sl2022)

¶31

deed doc.^{No'3461/2016 dated 15'03'2016' Subsequentlythe} existing^{loan was enhancedto Rs'20'00 lakhs dated 04'06'2019'} Defendants 3^{& 4 jointly executed guarantee agreement in favour of} Applicant bank^{for due repaymentof loan provided to defendant} no.1. After^{availingthe loan facilities'the defendants failed to} comply the^{terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was} constrained to^{classifythe account as NPA on 28'12'2020and issued} demand^{noticedated 23.04,2021,Inspite of severalrequestsand} demands, the^{defendantsdid not clearthe outstanding' Hence this} oA.

¶32

? Defendant^{No.1, 2 & 4 were} called absent^{and set exparte on} was called absent^{and set exparteon}

¶33

14.08.2023 and^{defendantno.3} 16.10.2023.

¶34

4.shriT.Srinivas,ManageroftheApplicantBankexaminedhimselfas AW.landexhibitedrelevantdocuments,whicharemarkedas Ex.A.1to A.22.

¶35

Heard the^{Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank'}

¶36

The^point that arise^{for consid-er4tien:'r€1glether the Applicant Bank is} entiued for the crain^{mfri4iit'tG,, 6hbHqst the Defendantsas} lifu 'il oraved for? _ fi: l! 2 t' oEr r{A 'n23^{p</sup> : Itthr.i :r<sup>1:'..} _e \r, 1."J t, -:'-*,/iti{')/

¶37

(OA.No.285/2022)

¶38

Defendants^{calledabsent and set exparte'To substantiate the case} of the Applicant^{Bank, AW'1, official of the Applicant Bank was} examined and^{he exhibited relevant documentsas Ex'A1 to A'22'} In view of the^{above,I hold that the Applicant Bank has established} their claim^{made in the OA against the Defendantsand hence the} Applicant^{Bankis entitledto recover the claim madein the OA with} future interest^{and costs.}

¶39

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

¶40

The Defendants^{are jointlyand severallyliable to pay to the Applicant} Bank a total sum^{of Rs.29,O5} ,22L.O7PI^{(RupeesTwentyNine} LakhsFiveThousandTwoHundredTwentyoneandpaise Seven only)^{i.e., a sum of Rs.4,68,045'50ps in term loan account} with interest @^{9.25o/o p.a and a sum of Rs'24,37,L75'57ps with} interest @ 10.95o/o^{p.a from 01.05'2021till realization'}

¶41

i) The Applicant bank^{isentitled toproceedagainstthe} hypothecated^{movablesand mortgaged property as described in} the schedule to OA^{towards realization of the debt due'}

¶42

ii) the Applicant^{Bank is also entitled to proceed agailst the person} 4 and ProPerties^of

¶43

and properties of^defe debt due. oA.

¶44

iii)

¶45

(oA.No.28sl2022)

¶46

iv) The Applicant shall^{file a} cost memo within two^{weeks from the} date of receiPt^{of order'}

¶47

Issue Recovery^{certificateaccordingly.}

¶48

Communicate a copy^{of the order to the parties concerned'}

¶49

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by^{her, corrected,signedand pronounced by me in the open} court on this the 19th^day of^{Dec., 2023)}

¶50

sdl-

¶51

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

d.'
xl.'

Canara Bank v. M/S Shiva Ganapathi Traders (Borrower)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Shiva Ganapathi Traders (Borrower)

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

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

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

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

Indian Bank versus M/S Palaka Inder Kanth