Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S Narahari Teja Enterprises

DRT15 Dec 2023OA/409/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The debts recovery tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application to recover loans, OD, and FD accounts along with interest and costs from the defendant enterprise, ordering attachment of hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.46,19,862.15 with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and properties; Recovery certificate issued.

Indian Bank versus M/S Narahari Teja Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAV OF DECEMBER' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.4O9 of 2OZz

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Bank, Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad, Represented by its authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. NarahariTeja Enterprises, Represented by its sole proprietor Sri Kuraakula Narahari, S/o X. Mallesh, male, 41years, R/o H. No.20-543, Ekalavyanagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500 047.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

Smt P. Revathi

Exparte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum (Rupees Forty Six .',, ,.... r,j,J Lakhs Nineteen thou3afit elghG.fiund Two and paise

¶18

Fifteen onty) i.e., a Curn orh i,4i,6f;i77.BfD in respect of term

¶19

(oA. No.409/2022)

¶20

loan with subsequent interest @ 15.50% p.a ; a sum of Rs.88,714.145 in respect of oD-Indhanvahana account with subsequent interest @ 10.10o/o and a sum of Rs.3,63,970.50ps in respect of FITL account with subsequent interest @ 10.100/o p,a with monthly rests from date of apprication tiI the date of rearization and in default for sare of hypothecated vehicre as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that for economic deveropment and job creation for scs and srs, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India raunched a scheme in the name and style of "Stand up India" roan and bank guarantee to members of DICCI pertaining to tenders of Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroreum corporation and Hindustan petroreum corporation. The defendant availed '.Indhanavahana,, term loan of Rs.30,97,595/_, bank guarantee of Rs.4,0O,OOO/- and clean OD of Rs.1.00 lakh on 19.11.2018. The defendant executed demand promissory note, disposal proceeds retter, agreement of hypothecation of vehicres and etc. The defendant executed the documents and hypothecated the vehicle purchased by way of agreement of hypothecation of the movables more loan facilities, rullv^lthe 1r",F?,,*#;,T.Tfe.".i.hedute -, defendant^il!:' i\l'.:^{1 ,qi(q} , to compty^{to oA.} the^Aner terms^avaitins of sanction, hence the a pplica rit^j ba n k strained to classify the 1 5 l,i:t: wt a ji account as NpA^: and is su 6d'',lejfed leg a l' i^,ir, nbtice-*dated L0.09.2022. Inspite

¶22

(oA.No.aog/2o2zl

¶23

of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 20.06.2023.

¶25

Sri Nakkala Suresh yadav, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.31.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

prayed for?

¶30

7' Defendant cared absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.31. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶31

B. In the result, costs, as under:

¶32

(oA. No.409/2022)

¶33

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.46,19,862.15ps (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Nineteen thousand Eight hundred Sixty Two and paise Fifteen only) i.e., a sum of Rs.41,67,177,g7ps in respect of term loan with subsequent interest @ 15.50o/o p.a ; a sum of Rs,gg,714.145 in respect of OD_IndhanVahana account with subsequent interest @ L0.700/o and a sum of Rs.3,63,g70.50ps in respect of FirL account

¶34

with subsequent interest @ 10.10olo p.afrom date of application till the date of realization;

¶35

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated movable vehicle as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

y nscribed by her, corrected, signed of Dec, 2023) and pronounced by me in the open

¶42

1 5 ltii "t23

¶43

sd/-
(G. GoptcHAND)
'6RUE COp.
q6ik) Iu..-PRESIDING oFFlcER
,5,";r,;!;iQl v

Indian Bank v. M/S Narahari Teja Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S Narahari Teja Enterprises

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

Similar cases

City Union Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Laxmi Venkateswara Cotton Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri.Jangili Srinivasa Rao

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Bricks

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vaddi Sidhardha Reddy

Indian Bank versus M/S. Varsha Logistics

City Union Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Om Sai Cotton Ginning & Industries