Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S.Supreme Pharma

DRT10 Mar 2023OA/359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an office application filed by Bank of India against a proprietorship concern and its proprietor for recovery of loan dues amounting to Rs.53,57,103.43 with interest, holding the bank substantiated its case as defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.53,57,103.43 with future interest; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and personal properties.

Bank of India versus M/S.Supreme Pharma — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RDCOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABN)

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTII DAY OE'MARCH, 2O2g

¶3

PRTSENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

o.A.35912022

¶5

Bank of India, Sultan Bazu branch, D.No.4-3- 1 69, 539&540, Ground floor, Hanuman Tekdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad-sOO 001

¶6

... Applicant Bank

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1.M/s Supreme Pharma

¶9

A proprietorship concern Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Harish Kumar Harwani, D.No.S- 1 -7 53,7 54, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-SOO OO 1.

¶10

Sri Sri Harish Kumar Harwani, S/o Muralidhar Harwani, Aged 30 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.1-2-332/5, Gagan Mahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad-sOO 029.

¶11

... Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Bank : ld. Advocate Sri D. Brahma Reddy For the Defendants : None

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants No. L & 2 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.53,57,103.43 ps. (Rupees Fifty three lakhs fifty seven thousand one hundred three and paise forty three only) with future interest @ 1r.25% p.a. with monthly...{g.pts plus 2% penal interest from the date of application and in ln

¶15

schedule to the O.A. 10 mnM0

¶16

c The case of the Applicant Ba,,k is that at the request of the defendant No.1, proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor, Defendant No.2, the bank sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs.48 lakhs vide Sanction I'etter dt'27.o7.2o2o- To secure the due repayment of the aforesaid loan, Defendant No. I represented by Defendant No.2 executed Demand promissory Note, Bearer letter, IFC_X_Hypothecation cum loan Agreement dt.2a.O7.2O2O. After availing the said loan facility, the defendants failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and in spite of repeated demands, the defendants have not cleared the dues. In view of the default in repayment of dues in the loan account, the loan account has been crassified as NpA ot 3o.o4.2o22 a,,d the bank issued Demand notice dt. os.os.2o22 under the provisions of sARF,AESI Act, 2OO2. Hence ttre O.A.

¶17

.). The defendants called absent and they were set exparte on 27.02.2022

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank

¶19

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶20

sri D.c'Prashanth Babu, officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW-l and exhibited the relevalt documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A14

¶21

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW-l, oflicial of the Applicant Bank was examined relevant documents which are marked as Ex.A 1 to above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has establishned in the O.A. against the defendants and

¶22

1S rmm

¶23

hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the O.A. with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present oA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶25

i) The Defendants No.l &2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.53,57,103.43 ps. (Rupees Fifty three lakhs fifty seven thousand one hundred three and paise forty three on19 with future interest @ Ll.25o/o p.a.. simple from the date of application till the date of realization.

¶26

ii) The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated assets described in schedule to the O.A. towards reaTization of the debt due.

¶27

iii) the Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of Defendant No.l firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

iv) The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶31

¶32

in the open court on this the

¶33

sd/-
(c. eloPr CHANDI
PRTSIDING OFrICER
10 ftrB'M
TRUE COPY
.&s,?,
Assf. Regisfrar (l L
DRT-T, HYT'E*&EAO. 9

Bank of India v. M/S.Supreme Pharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S.Supreme Pharma

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri. Thauvyiya Venkanavath

Ms Raj Auto Part through Its Prop Raju Alias Sanjay Pandurang Chawhan versus Amravati Merchant Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Seema Asija

Sh Vijay Singh versus State Bank of India

Ms Vaishanavi Bichayat Kendra through its Proprietor Ashok Baburao Chaple Ors. versus Capri Global Capital Limited

State Bank of India versus Sangita