Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s Mrida Group

DRT20 Dec 2023OA/614/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993. The defendant failed to adduce evidence or cross-examine the bank's witness. Consequently, the Tribunal held the defendant liable to pay the claimed dues with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs.52,77,184.08 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against OA schedule assets, defendant's person, and properties; costs awarded.

Canara Bank versus M/s Mrida Group — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: SH. RAtvESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), tvl.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 614 OF ZO22

¶3

Canara Bank, SME Ku katpaly At Mythri Towers Plot No.74, H.No,5-5-35/1 & 3 Prasha nth inaga r, Kukatpally Hyderabad, Tela n9a na - 5000 72.

¶4

....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

lvl/s. Mrida Group Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Nuvvula Ma noga na Kumar S/o Sri N. Venkateswara Rao Age: Major, Occ: Business F-4/B/t,2nd Ftoor IDA Gandhinagar, Kukatpa lly Hydera bad- 5000 3 7.

¶7

....Defendant.

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal. Counsel for Defendant : Ms. V. Babitha.

¶9

:: ORDER::

¶10

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA fited u/s 19 of the Recovery of the Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.52,77,184. O8ps (Rs.4t,47 ,744.28ps in Loan A/c No.242776600O072 atong with future interest @10.80o/o p.a. plus penal interest @2o/o p.a., Rs.6,75,g37/- in Loan A/c No.2427755000093 atong future interest @7.900/0 plus 2yo penat interest and Rs.4,54,202.80ps in Loan A/c No. ,4ww,,,.?'*o'n

¶11

o^.|t2f{fii -6"'*

¶12

¶13

17OOOL6222\O^{alongwith future interest @8 40% p'a' plus2olo} penal interest)^{from the defendantfrom 31'07 2022 with} monthly^{rests till the date of realisation along with costsand in} default^{sale of OA schedule assets'}

¶14

The averments^{of applicant bank as per the OA' in brief' are} that defendant^{availed business loans/emergencycredit line} from time^{to time Defendant executednecessaryloan} documents^{from time to time The loansare secured by way of} hypothecation^{ofmovableassets However'defendants} committed^{default in repay the loansAccordingly'the loan} account^{was ctassified as NPAon 25'02 2022' followedby recall} notice dated^{78.06,2022and legal notice dated LO'08'2022'} Hence this^OA.

¶15

Defendant^{filed writtenstatementThe contentionof the} defendant^{as per the averments in the written statement is that} the OA^{is liableto be dismissedin limine for the reason that the} OA is filed^{by suppressingtrue facts with false and baseless} allegations.^{The OA is time barred The defendant has never} executed^{the alleged documents On the contrary'the} defendant^{has been quite regular in making the payments'} However,^{due to loss in business coupledwithCorona situation'} defendant^{couldnot pay monthly instalments' The applicant} neither^{issued recall noticenor the legal notice' Withthese} contentions,^{defendantprayedfor dismissal of the OA'}

¶16

Applicant^{Bank examined Suresh Raqhumandla' Manager as} AW-1 and^{marked 20 documentsthrough him as Ex A l to Ex'} Ylt>-' t-o't- -)

¶17

'//

¶18

oA,6L4l2022

¶19

A.20. Defendants right of adducing evidence was forfeited on 13. 10.20 2 3.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for both parties. Perused the wrltten arguments filed by defendant and the material^placedon record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled For the oA claim against the defendant and the OA schedule assets as^prayed for?

¶23

Availment of credit facilities and default thereafteT aTe^not disputed. As stated supra, Defendant has not adduced evidence in spite of affording several adjournments nor did he cross examine AW1 as to the veracity of documents^placed on^record by the applicant bank. Under these circumstances,^Evidence AFfidavit coupled with the recitals in the Exs. A.1 to^A.20 documents marked on behalf of the Applicant^{Bank, clinches the} claim of the Appllcant Bank against the defendant.^{Hence, I hold} that Defendant is liable to^pay the OA claim to the^Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the^present Original Application^{No.614l2022is} allowed as under:^-

¶25

i) the Defendant is liable to^pay to^the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.52,77,184.08ps (Rs.41,47 ,144 .28ps, Rs.6,75,A37/- and Rs.4,54,202.80ps) with future^interest eY""e

¶26

¶27

0.A.67412022

¶28

@7.90o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s Mrida Group

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s Mrida Group

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

Sainulabdeen versus Authorized Officer

Joy Abraham versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shree Ram Industries

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Narayanaswamy H.V.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Raghavendra Technologies