Allowed

Canara Bank v. Raghavan Naik Karamthod

DRT6 Sept 2023OA/683/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues of Rs. 3,26,449.79 under MSME and GECL loans. The court held the defendant liable to pay the amount with interest and costs, and entitled the bank to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant's other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 3,26,449.79 with future interest and costs; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties for recovery.

Canara Bank versus Raghavan Naik Karamthod — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Original Applica on No: 683 OF 2022

¶4

Canara Bank Branch office at H. No. 6_3_144, 1*, Floor, lahanara tKareem Complex, Ealanagar, Ranga Reddy District, r erangana State-500037. Rep by its Manager-Cum_Authorized Signatory And GPA Holder.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Raghavan Naik Karamthod S/o. lvlitya Karamthod. R/o. H- No.7-81, Ka agudem Vilage, Vikarabad, Telangana State_5OOO36

¶8

Also at: Flat No. 201, ptot No. B/5, Adityanagar, Opp: pavan Bar & Resturant, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072. ...Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s Daram Srinivasulu

Defendants

: Exparte

1ft.n*

oA.NO.683/2022

:: qLLqE::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs. 3L,26,449.79 i.e a^{sum of Rs. 25,43,550.79ps} under MSME Loan^{and Rs. 5,82,899.00psunder GECL loan} respectively as on 01.07.2022^{fromthe defendantwith future} interest @ 10.15olo and @^{7.90o/o, p.a. with monthlyrests from} 01.O7.2022 till the date of^{realization along wlth costs and in} default for sale of oA hypothecated^vehicle.

¶16

Summons served on sole defendant,^{he was set exparteon} 23.L2.2022 as called absent^{and no representation.}

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined K. Srinivas,^{SeniorManager,as} AW-1 and marked 24 documents^{through homasEx. A.1 to Ex.} 4.24.

¶18

Heard the Ld. counsel^{for the Applicant Bankand perused the} material^placed on record.

¶19

The^point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated Vehicle?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant^remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents vlz., Exs. A.1 to A.24 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with tuture interest and costs,/^\9-- n^ /_y'.2t*"

¶22

¶23

oA.NO.683/2022

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.683/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs. 3L,26,449.79 i.e. a sum of Rs. 25,43,550.79ps under MSME Loan and Rs. 5,82,899.00ps under GECL loan respectively with future interest @ 7.90o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno. corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6u day of Septem ber, 2023) .

¶32

Ox-"

¶33

th6uesxwen xorne; PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Raghavan Naik Karamthod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Raghavan Naik Karamthod

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Bhaskar

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Swaran Singh

Mr Shabeer Sheik Abdulla versus Canara Bank

Bank of India versus M/S. Kavitha Constructions

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sai Sravan Health Care Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S Vijaya Electricals