Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Seven Hills Tar Petro Products LLP

DRT26 Sept 2023OA/676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a debt of Rs. 6,53,81,776.47 plus future interest against seven defendants, who were adjudged jointly and severally liable. The order also directed issuance of a recovery certificate and mortgage proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 6,53,81,776.47 with future interest @ 10.35% p.a.; secured by mortgage; entitled to costs and recovery certificate.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Seven Hills Tar Petro Products LLP — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 676 OF 2022

¶4

Karnataka Bank Limited, Nampally Branch, Upper Ground Floor, Door No. 5-8-2 & 3, JR Mall, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad-500001. Rep. by Senior Branch Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Seven Hills Tar^{petro products} LLp. Flat No. 304, Relence Krishna, Hill Fort, Near Kalanjali, MLA euarters, Hyderabad-500029. Rep. by its Partners 2 to 5.

¶8

Smt. K. Rajeswari, Wo.^Srl. K. Lakshmipathi, Aged: 52 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-146, Officers Colony, Ananthapur-515001.

¶9

Sri Purnesh Babu Kayagurala S/o. Sri. K. Lakshmi Pathi, Aged: 31 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-146, Housing Board Colony, Near Sunshine SCH Officers Colony,

¶10

Ananthapur-515001.

¶11

sri. Gotti Mukkula vishwanath,

¶12

oA.NO.676/2022

¶13

¶14

Aged: 52 Years,^{Occ: Business,} 3-6-16A17 , HYderguda, om Sai Towers^{104, Himayathnagar,} Hyderabad-500029.

¶15

Smt. Vishalakshmi^DeY W/o. Sri Pradeep^{Kumar DeY,} Aged: 50 Years,^{Occ: Business,} Flat No. 34, BN^{Reddy complex,} 3-6-67 /66,^Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029.

¶16

Srl Vijaya^Shanker S/o. Sri Gottimukkula^Narahari, Aged: 46 Years, Occ:^Business, 3-6-167, Om^{Sai Towers 104,,} Himayat'hnagar, Hyderabad-500029. "Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G. Ramesh^Babu

Defendants

: ExParte

:: qLLEB::

The Applicant^{Bankfiled the presentOA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.6,53,8 L,776.47ps^{from the defendants7 and 2} jointly and severally with future interest @^15.35o/op.a. including 5olo^{penal interest compoundedalongwith costs and} in default for sale of OA schedule^property'

¶22

Summons served on D2,^{whereassummons of D1 & 3 served} through^{paper publication.} Summons^sent to^{D4 & 5 returned} with endorsement Unclaimed,^{hence deemed} to be^served. They were set exparte on 27.04.2023 as called^{absent and no} representation.

oa.No,67612022

The Applicant Bank examined l.4aanush Devarakonda, Asst.

¶27

Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 14 documents through

¶28

him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.14.

¶29

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

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶31

Whether the Appticant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA sciedule property?

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.14 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Applicatio n N).676/2OZZ is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Oefendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 6,53,81.776.47ps with future interest @ 10.35olo simple from the date of application till the date of reatization; Ary:-* Lt"th'n-

¶35

oA.NO.576/2022

¶36

ii) the OA clalm is^{secured by way of mortgage} of property described^{in the schedule} annexed to the^{OA and the applicant bankis} entitled to^{proceed against the samerealise} its debu

¶37

iii) the applicant^{bank is also entitledto proceed} against the^{person and propertiesof} defendants^{for realization of its dues;}

¶38

lv) the applicant^{bank is entitled for the costs'}

¶39

The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file costMemo within 2 weeks} from the date^{of receipt of this Order'}

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶41

10, Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signed andpronounced by me in theopen courton} this the 26n^{davof September, 2023).}

¶42

¶43

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESlDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Seven Hills Tar Petro Products LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Seven Hills Tar Petro Products LLP

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

Union Bank of India versus Sri Debobrata Phukon

Yes Bank versus Rahul Boro

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited versus Abhinandan Jain and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus Late Sh. Avtar Singh

Paramhans Kumar Puri versus Central Bank of India

Ms Maa Vaishno Trading and others versus Bank of Baroda