Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S. Yamjala Vimala

DRT18 Aug 2023OA/61/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Indian Bank against Yamjala Vimala for recovery of outstanding dues including term loans, guarantees, and credit limits totaling approximately Rs. 83.85 lacs with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent declared liable to pay Rs. 83,85,805/- with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated/personal properties; recovery certificate issued.

Indian Bank versus M/S. Yamjala Vimala — 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

¶3

OA,No.6t of 2O23

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ind ian Bank, Himayathnagar bra nch, Hydera bad. Represented by its Asst. General Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Yamjala Vimala, Represented by^proprietor SmtYamjal Vimla, W/o y.A. yaraj, Aged about 57 years, R/o 4-174/5O5, Aditya sadan, Maruthi nagar, LK hospltal backside, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 5OO O47.

¶9

Defenda nt

¶10

Counsel for the Pa rties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

Sri B. Damodar Reddy

Exparte

ORDER

filed the present OA against Defendant for of Rs.83,85,8O5/(Rupees Eighty three ';lakhs sand Eight hundred and five only) i.e.,

¶17

(OA.No.61/2023)

¶18

a) a sum of Rs.57,09,133/_ in respect of term loan account with interest @ 9.35o/o p.a with monthly rests from 07.02.2023 till the date of rea lization;

¶19

b) a sum of Rs,5,22,155/- in respect of FITL account with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a with monthry rests from 07.02.2023 tiil the date of realization;

¶20

c) a sum of Rs,5,00,289/- in respect of GECLS account with interest @^9.25olop.a with monthly rests from 07.02.2023 till the date of realization;

¶21

d) a sum of Rs.16,54,228/- in respect of GECLS 1.0 extension account with interest @ 9.25olo p.a with monthly rests from 07,02.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶22

and in default for sale of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant availed credit facilities for purchase of 1B MT bulk LpG tank trucks under InDhan vahana scheme. The defendant avaired term loan of Rs.61,95,190/-, bank guarantee limit of Rs.7,50,000/_ and clean oD limit'of Rs.2.00 rakhs. The defendant executed the ..,.'.,.

¶24

fol lowi ng Feeuiity d oiLtfrlEqtB., i n favou r of a pp I ica nt ba n k : ':, - .. ",^.i

¶25

i : ,l;\

¶26

i)'Deinand piornissory nirt\taatea 17.tI.2or}; ,^,. 1^g lirt,lil^.,,i

¶27

(oA.No.61l2023)

¶28

ii) Letter of continuity dated 17.11.2018; iii) Disposal of proceeds letter dated 17.tI.2}lg. iv) Term loan agreement dated 17.11.2018. v) Agreement of hypothecation of vehicres dated 17.rL.2oLB. The Applicant Bank sanctioned FITL facility of Rs'4,54,664/- and in consideration, the defendant executed various security documents. Again the defendant was sanctioned working capital term loan of Rs.6,00 lakhs under Ind_GECLS_Covid_19 on 23'09'2020' Again the defendant avaired working capitar term roan of Rs.15,46,000/- and executed various security documents. After availing the roan facirities, the defendant faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 28.08.2022 and issued legal notice dated LO.O9.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on 04.07.2023,

Bank which

3 i2l
,l

(oA.No.61l2023)

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

7 ' The defendant was called 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.34. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶38

¶39

In the result, the present oA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶40

The Defendant is riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a totar sum of Rs'83,85 ,8os/- (Rupees Eighty three rakhs Eighty five thousand Eight hundred and five only) i.e .,

¶41

a) a sum of Rs,57,09,r33/- in respect of term loan account with interest @ 9,35o/o p.a from 07.02.2023 till the date of realization;

¶42

9.25o/o p.a from 07 .02

¶43

i.i Y 1$tilSzan ;
i,-.'J,. ,, Wl.oro. .,-3:;rll^j
\r'l'Q,.--.- -.-.:'.1'.i-:'11!
'-t'tF-" -'''r' :,1.'i,a::j)f'
..! { :-.
-rl,-.Lri, :: 1.; ''t.':--,71/
-;+'- ..'- -..- -' 1';i;"-

¶44

(oA.No.61l2023)

¶45

f) a sum of Rs.5,00,289/- in respect of GECLS account with interest @ 9.25olo p,a from 07.02.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶46

g) a sum of Rs.16,54,228/- in respect of GECLS 1,0 extension account with interest @ 9.250lo p.a from 07.02.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶47

i) the Applicant bank is entitred to proceed against the hypothecated property as described in the schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶48

ii) the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

ofthe order to the parties concerned.

¶53

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open 2023)

¶54

sd/-

¶55

,-J:,r",ff':li}:l

¶56

IRUE^CGPY // /t ' -o Z'^.--t /'i ,Tr-*sirar(!-( 9 &/'&/vt's 1-11;..r. liy$ilaBED'

Indian Bank v. M/S. Yamjala Vimala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S. Yamjala Vimala

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

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

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