Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Manikanta Mineral Water Plant

DRT18 Aug 2023OA/397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application (OA 397 of 2022) filed by Canara Bank against two defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,12,50,023.41. The bank secured a term loan, overdraft, and other facilities against mortgaged property. Upon default and classification as NPA, the defendants were declared jointly and severally liable to repay the dues with interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,12,50,023.41 with 10.40% p.a. interest; Bank allowed to recover from mortgaged and other properties; Costs of OA awarded.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Manikanta Mineral Water Plant — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.397 of 2022

¶3

Between :

¶4

M/s. Canara Bank, SME branch, Hanumakonda, Warangal-506 001. Represented by its Manager Applicant

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

M/s. Sri Manikanta Mineral Water plant Represented by its proprietor Smt Azimeera Dhooli, W/o A. Hari Singh, aged major, # 6-2-8/36/40, Kallem road, Janagaon - 506 167, Warangal.

¶7

Mr. Azimeera Hari Singh, S/o A. Dhaniya, aged major, r/o 2-6-932, HB colony, KLN Reddy nagar, Hanumakonda, Warangal. Defendants

¶8

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶9

For the Applicant D.L. Kiran Prakash For the Defendants

¶10

(oA.397 /20221

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,12,5OrO23.4lps (Rupees One crore Twerve Lakhs Fifty thousand and twenty three and paise forty seven only) with future interest @ l2.4Oo/o p.a with monthly rests (inclusive of 2o/o penar interest) from date of apprication tiI realization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged immovabre property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶13

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant No.1 represented by its proprietor avaired term roan of Rs.30.00 lakhs vide sanction retter dated L2.12.2014. The defendant no.1 offered immovabre property as described in the schedure to oA as a security for the loan availed. Defendant no.1 availed occ facility of Rs.10.00 lakhs on 16.01.2020 and executed various necessary documents. on 24,04.2020 the defendant no.1 avaired covid-Ill short term loan account. Again the defendant no.1 avaired GECL term loan of Rs.8.00 rakhs on 11.06.2020 and executed pronote and agreement of deed of hypothecation dated 11.06.2020. On 7L.ot'202r the defendant no.1 avaired MSME roan of Rs.39.00 rakhs and executed composite.{oan agree-ment. .pefendant no.2 stood as .l guarantor and executed guarantee igreemdritld ated 22,0L2021 in

¶14

loA.397 /20221

¶15

favour of Applicant bank. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 31.03.2021 and issued demand notice on 25,05.202L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶16

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 09.06.2023.

¶17

Shri D. Satyam Babu, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.39.

¶18

q Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

(oA.397 /20221

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs,1,12,5O,O23.41ps (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Fifty thousand and twenty three and paise forty seven only) with future interest @ 10.40olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶26

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedure to oA towards rearization of its dues.

¶27

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties ofdefendant No.2 and properties ofdefendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

iii) The Applicant Bank is entiued to the costs of the OA.

¶29

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

¶30

(oA.397 /2022)

¶31

10. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶32

11. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of Aug, 2023)

¶34

sd/-

¶35

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

i'ri-tt;lr<br>ii: lt* i I iirc 2ozl a'
tl
.. +,,
. i:. -. 1,):r.
T,-r, "(o;'"* ,i:i . _..4f..9]iia^F.I3 j
$'i:.,--;i:"4.+r/.:-:' "- - - ' t r- !' :=, :;;.-z -r/)''

¶37

ftiff;'f;/'or'ir'-'

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Manikanta Mineral Water Plant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Manikanta Mineral Water Plant

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 Potta Bhikshapathi

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Abi Industry

Union Bank of India versus Rohit Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S the Brew Cafe

Indian Bank versus M/S. Yamjala Vimala

Ms Aarush Polymers Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India