Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. S. v Constructions

DRT9 Oct 2023OA/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of India against a partnership firm and its partners for recovery of loans classified as NPA, including principal amounts and future interest with costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing Defendants to pay Rs.35,21,493.92 with future interest at 16% p.a. and allowing realization of hypothecated movables and other properties.

Bank of India versus M/S. S. v. Constructions — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.4OS of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bank of India, Azamabad branch, 7-t-LB7 / A, Aza ma bad, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Constituted attorney

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. S.V. Constructions, Represented by partner Mr. Shivaratri Venkanna, S/o Chandraiah,

¶9

H. No, 13-6-43 4 I C/ 50, 1.t floor,

¶10

Pillar no.84, Maruthi nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 5OO OOg.

¶11

Mr. Shiva ratri Venkanna, s/o Chandraiah, aged 44 yearc, occ: business, male,

¶12

H. No. 13-6-438/ A/ 86/ 2, Sainagar, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶13

Smt. Shivarathri yadamma,
w/o Mr. Shivaratri Venkanna,
aged 41 years, occ: business,
female, H.No.13-6-438/A/86/.?:,. ..
Sainagar, Gudimalkapu.,. _..- * t +;..; ' t,",,
'2.
Hyderabad - 5OO O2B. ," tiy .'3' - H...i :=-: ""' . \ Defendants
*<br>

¶14

(OA.No.405 of 2022)

¶15

Counsel for the pa rties:

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

For the Defendants

¶18

Sri T, Ranadhir Singh

¶19

Expa rte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,21,493.92ps (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty one thousand Four hundred Ninety three and paise Ninety two only) i.e., oD A/c of Rs.2B,5 6,074.42psand GECL loan A/c of Rs.6,65,419.50ps with interest @ 160lo p.a from date of firing of oA ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

2, As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No'1 is a partnership firm represented by defendants 2 & 3 as partners of the firm avaired oD roan of Rs.25.00 rakhs in 2014 and GECL loan of Rs.4,94,OOO/- in the year 2020. The defendants executed sanction letter, demand promissory note for Rs.25.00 lakhs, bearer letter, confirmation ,u,,"1 ,,0_n^{defendant, loan agreement} cum muttipurposedocument"nar,vqqtftg[:rttl6.\f_nasreementdated t6.10.2014. The defendan,i f,rrorn"eii"a *,eh}lt and machinery, ; 2 Z^{z0 utuLt2.Wg} }tl lrm^*l:-lj &.h=,,.'r,,;# tl.p^{izgpylct'"'-1'-'} :i==::-

¶23

(OA.No.405 of 2022)

¶24

stock and book debts to the Appricant bank by executing hypothecation cum roan agreement dated 2g.0g.2020 and deed of guarantee dated 29'O9'2020 by defendants 2 & 3. 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 and issued legal notice dated 10'11.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding, Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants No,1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 2g,07.2023.

¶26

Shri Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1

¶27

and exhibited releva nt documents, which are marked as Ex.A.l to

¶28

4.27.

¶29

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

prayed for?

¶33

7' Defendants ca'ed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official 9f the.Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevanrl;do.cum.ints, as 4.27. In view of the ;n"

¶34

above, I hold that the Rpgiicant Aurt'1,u, * their claim made

¶35

n i ^.r ---"rt3Jf

¶36

: i.':.:1 \ia+.-_ 0 9- 3 fnl 207C

¶37

(OA.No.40s of 2022)

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

9, The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.35,21,493.92ps (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty one thousand Four hundred Ninety three and paise Ninety two only) i.e., oD A/c of Rs.2g,56,074.42ps and GECL roan A/c of Rs.6,65,419.50ps with interest @ 16% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶41

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶42

movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶43

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and

¶44

properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1

¶45

firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

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

¶47

The Applicant shall file weeks from the date of

¶48

receipt of order. ,,?^{o8 |,rT zun} : w,#P

¶49

(OA.No.405 of 2022)

¶50

14, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of Oct, 2023)

¶53

sd/ -

¶54

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

o I otl 2o2J _ j,

¶56

t'ituE coP./ ,-;:;';fi9

Bank of India v. M/S. S. v Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. S. v Constructions

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

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus Yadagiri

Smt Ch Padmavathi versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gouri Narasimha Reddy

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sharadha Binders

State Bank of India versus Ms Indira Poultry Farm

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vedanta Cosmecuticals