Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Psb Solutions

DRT4 Jul 2023OA/400/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA 400 of 2022, Canara Bank sought recovery of loans against defendants in the DRT. The bank established its claim via affidavit evidence in the ex-parte proceeding. The DRT held the bank entitled and ordered payment of dues plus future interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered to jointly and severally pay total sum of Rs.83,26,827.18 with future interest; Examiner to issue Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Psb Solutions — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.4OO OF 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank, Saidabad colony branch, Hydera bad.

¶6

Represented by its Manager & GPA holder

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s, PSB Solutions, Represented by its Proprietor T. Padmalatha,

¶10

H.No. 11-98/A, Lenin Nagar, Meerpet, Balapur, Ranga Reddy District - 500 097.

¶11

Smt T. Padmalatha, w/o Sri Parthasaradhi, aged major, occ: business, H.No.4-119/3, Anji Reddy nagar Colony, Opp: ARCI, Balapur, Ranga Reddy district - 500 005.

¶12

? Sri Tirumala Partha Saradhi, s/o Sri Bhakta vastalam aged major, occ: service, H.No.4-119/3, Anji reddy nagar Colony, Opp: ARCI, Balapur, Ranga Reddy district - 500 005.

¶13

Defenda nts

¶14

(OA.No.400 of 2022)

¶15

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee

For the Defendants

Exparte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.83r26r827.18ps (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty Six thousand Eight hundred Twenty Seven and paise Eighteen only) ie.,

¶22

i) a sum of Rs.33,47,044.95ps under OD/OCC loan account with further interest @ 11.95olo p.a compounded monthly from 0L,12,2022 till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) ".'a'tum- of is,,].i9Q,653/- under tA\ GECL facility with further , ,,=,' i',

¶24

,i .]'''' int"r"i'q 9.9ff\ e.a from compounded monthty from ' : .f ,L.4$rFif, ,n;il" or rearization;

¶25

D a sq!sqm of .21ps under MSME facility with further . zntlY-' .ili-'.'.'i-i'@t3.goo/o p.a from compounded monthly from

¶26

OL.12.2022 till the date oi realization;

¶27

iv) a sum of Rs.23,153.02ps under WCTL facility with further interest @ 10,800/o p.a from compounded monthly from Ot.12.2022 till the date of realization;

¶28

(OA.No.400 of 2022)

¶29

v) a sum of Rs.1,31,861/- under ADTL facility with further interest @ It.4oo/o p.a from compounded monthly from 0L.12.2022 till the date of realization;

¶30

vi) a sum of Rs.12,45,149/- under GECL facility 1.0 extension with further interest @ 11.40olo p.a from compounded monthly from 01.12.2022 till the date of realization;

¶31

and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedules "A & B" to OA.

¶32

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that

¶33

a proprietorship firm represented by its Jrr'-S.n# .2 who availed overdraft loan facility of d$ 0.00 lakhs and loan facility of Rs.30.00 lakhs for business I IilU[2$4.citity and term toan facitity are sanctioned asainsr inery and fittings and equitable mortgage of more fully described in the schedule to OA. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor and accepted the terms and conditions of sanction letter. The defendants executed common hypothecation agreement and guarantee agreement dated 06.02.2020, To secure loan facility extended to defendant no.l, defendant no.3 deposited title deeds on 03.02.2020. The defendants again availed GECL facility of Rs. 2,51,000/- against hypothecation of

¶34

(OA.No.400 of 2022)

¶35

machinery and personal guarantee of defendant no.3. the applicant bank sanctioned GECL facility of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Further the Applicant bank sanctioned GECL (extension) facility of Rs.11,B5,OOO/- against the hypothecation of machinery. Defendant no.3 extended the mortgage of immovable property more fully described in schedule B to OA. 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 27.7.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants

¶36

did not outstanding. Hence this OA. 64"d no.nffi"re. bsent and set exparte on 25.04.2023, ager of the Applicant Bank examined himself $r^rvtstv{$L*r, f mS$1,^und "LU!,1E releva nt docu ments, which are marked as ){q&ffiiez

¶37

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 who is the official of the

¶40

¶41

(oA.No.400 of 2022)

¶42

Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.40. 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.

¶43

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

¶44

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.83,26,827.18ps (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty Six thousand Eight hundred Twenty Seven and

¶45

paise Eighteen o&h*-ie,,

¶46

' ;:,ffiSffiIffi:":.";:::.;. ;J:.: :

¶47

ii) a sur\r.|ft$s.1,98,65rtP..j4fler rrJ, GECL facitity with further realization;

¶48

iii) a sum of Rs.33,80,966.21ps under MSME facility with further interest @13.90o/o p.a from 01.12.2022 till the date of realization;

¶49

(OA.No.400 of 2022)

¶50

iv) a sum of Rs.23,153.02ps under WCTL facility with further interest @ 10.80o/o p.a from 0t.12.2022 till the date of realization;

¶51

v) a sum of Rs.1,31,861/- under ADTL facility with further interest @ 11.40olo p,a from 07.12.2022 till the date of realization;

¶52

vi) a sum of Rs.12,45,L49l- under GECL facility 1.0 extension with further interest @ 11.40olo p.a from Ot.t2.2O22 till the date of .$'

¶53

realization;

¶54

The Applicant ainst the hypothecated property as [ed.,in^{the schedugd,} towards rea lization of its dues.

¶55

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.

¶56

L2, The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶57

(OA.No.400 of 2022)

¶58

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

¶59

L4. Issue Recovery certiFicate accordingly.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶61

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
court ont{is the 4th day of J 2023)
-Dq\
(G. GOPTCHAND)
f--ffi @q
PRESIDING OFFICEROFFICER
: llJu20[3 +r
fuh-,,".s,
S;xlB

¶62

sdl-

¶63

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICEROFFICER

¶64

;'ffi'

Canara Bank v. M/S. Psb Solutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Psb Solutions

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

Union Bank of India versus Mrs, Bingi Jyothsna

State Bank of India versus Prem Kumar

Karur Vysya Bank versus M S Crescent Insulations

State Bank of India versus M/S. Radha Sree Motors

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

Union Bank of India versus M S Sd Cnc Technologies