Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S K.S.Drill Tech (Borrower)

DRT26 Jul 2023OA/457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of India against M/s.K.S.Drill Tech and its proprietor. Being ex parte, the court held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding term loan, current account dues, future interest, and costs, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted includes direction to pay the OA claim of Rs.83,93,366/- with future interest and costs, realization of debt from OA secured asset, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus M/S K.S.Drill Tech (Borrower) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2023 PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 457 OF 2022

¶3

Bank of India, S.R. Nagar Branch, Ground Floor,70lA(8-3-191/93), Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad-38 Represented by its Chief Manger. .....Applica nt.

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s.K.S.Drill Tech,(Borrower) Represented by its^proprietor, Itrs.]yothi^{Netapaua W/o Mr.LakshmiKiran B,} Plot No.22,Sri Lakshmi Enclave, Dammaiguda,Kesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajigiri District, Telangana-500083.

¶6

Mrs.Jyothi Nelapafla Proprietor of M/s.K.S.Drill Tech, W/o Mr.Lakshmi Kiran B, Aged:31years,Flat No.4O2, Aditya^palace, Lake View Residency Colony, Kapra,Medchat-Matkajgiri District, Telangana-500094.

¶7

....DeFendants

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : M rs. P.Suseela Defendants '^E*purt. ?W.s

oA No.45712022

:: ORDER::

The Appticant Bank fited the totat sum or Rs.83,e3,366/ ;^j:: .r,,-, [,jH::;I,fl": Term Loan Account with future interest @ 11.20+2olo and a sum of Rs.3,322_ under current account with future interest @78.75o/op.a.+2o/o with monthly rests from the defendants

¶13

jointly and severa y from the date of this Apptication till the date of realization along with costs and for sale OA schedule asset.

¶14

The defendants l and 2 served with summons through paper

¶15

publication, , they were set exparte on 23.02.2023 and ca ed

¶16

absent and no representation.

¶17

The Appticant Bank examined M.Sreekanth, Credit Officer as AW-1 and marked 17 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.77 .

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA uiuaurc asset?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.17 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable , txo>,^ ^- ; -:$).-^-

¶22

OA No.45712022

¶23

to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

Jn the result, the present Original Application No.457/2O22 is allowed as under: _

¶25

i) ttre DeFendar ab e to pay .]:,ffii,"J::I,::l .::l:::I

¶26

of Rs.83,93,366/_ i.e., a sum of Rs.83,90,039/_ under Term Loan Account and a sum of Rs.3,327/_ under current account with future interest @11% p.a. simpte from the date of application tilt the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of asset described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶30

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, cor;ected. -^='' sisnErured and Pronounced by me in the open court on ,tri.,tr" ,o't a", "iirrv, ,', /'X wrtt^-o,'* lnAfiesuwan xorne; PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. M/S K.S.Drill Tech (Borrower)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S K.S.Drill Tech (Borrower)

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

Uco Bank versus M/s Arunachal Valley Cold Storage

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Basanti Soap Industry

Kisan Metharam Balani versus Icici Bank Limited

Mr Ashwani Kumar versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)

Canara Bank versus Sri Pankaj Sahani

Milind S/O Keshaorao Pande versus Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. through Its Authorized Officer