Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra, v. M/S. Kasni Polymers

DRT1 Sept 2023OA/69/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the OA filed by Bank of Maharashtra seeking recovery of loans against M/s Kasni Polymers and individual guarantors. The bank established its claim through documentary evidence as the defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 1,11,51,010/- with future interest; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties of respondents.

Bank of Maharashtra, versus M/S. Kasni Polymers — Consumer Protection | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE lST DAY OF SEPTEMBER' 20.23

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.69 OF 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra, Kachiguda branch, Hyderabad, Telangana State Represented by its Chief Manager Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s, Kasni Polymers, Represented by its Proprietor, Plot no,24 & 25, survey no.415 Flat no.50L, 5th floor, Kothari BV Residency, Dwaraka nagar, Dammaiguda village, Nagaram village, Medchal - Malkajgiri dist -083.

¶8

Smt Utukuru Vani, w/o Sri Narender Kumar Reddy, aged major, occ: business, Plot no.24 & 25, survey no.415 Flat no.501, 5th floor, Kothari BV Residency, Dwaraka nagar, Dammaiguda village, Nagaram village, Medchal - Malkajgiri dist -083.

¶9

4F 3. Shri Utukuru Narendra Kumar Reddy, * s/o Sri Nagamuni Reddy, aged major, occ: business, ,< Plot no.24 & 25, survey no,415 Flat no.501, 5th floor, Kothari BV Residency, Dwaraka nagar, Dammaiguda village, Nagaram village, Medchal - Malkajgiri dist -083.

¶10

(OA.No.69/2023)

¶11

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

For the Defendants

¶14

Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee

¶15

Exparte

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,11,51,010/_ (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Fifty One thousand and Ten only) i.e.,

¶18

a) a sum of Rs'11,58,914/- under cash credit roan facirity with further interest @ 14.90o/o p.a with monthly rests from 12.01.2023 till the date of full and final realization;

¶19

b) a sum of Rs.56,67,609/- under term loan facility with further interest @ 14.90o/o p.a with monthly rests from 12.01.2023 till the date of full and final realization;

¶20

c) a sum of Rs.14,27,O72/- under GECL Covid_l9 loan facility with further interest @ 11.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from 12.01.2023 till the date of full and final realization;

¶21

d) a sum of Rs.13,58,538/- under FITL loan facility with further interest @ 10.20olo p.a with monthly rests from 12.01.2023 till the .t.

¶22

date of full and final realization: .

¶23

.t.
.
- ,j'.',.
ia
:;_ "'.-.
t i sit i02:l..".
2.': .

¶24

(oA.No.69/2023)

¶25

e) a sum of Rs.15,38,877/- under wcrl facirity with further interest @^11.20olop.a with monthry rests from t2.0r.2023 tiil the date of fu ll and final realization;

¶26

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

¶27

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor, the 2'd defendant herein availed term loan facility of Rs.56.00 lakhs, cash credit loan of Rs.24.OO lakhs against hypothecation of machinery, charge on stock and book debts and equitable mortgage of immovable property and personal guarantee of defendants 2 & 3. The defendants executed demand promissory note on 07.O2.2019 for a sum of Rs.56.00 lakhs, demand promissory note for Rs.24.00 lakhs, deed of hypothecation for all facilities, guarantee or all facirities except agricurturar facirities dated 07.02.2019. To secure the loan facility extended to defendant no.1, the defendant no.3 deposited their title deeds on 08.02.2019 of the property more fully described schedure B to the oA. Defendants again avaired working capital term loan under emergency credit line guarantee scheme of Rs.15.00:la(fr"s'-"tgr buSiness purpose vide sanction letter dated 1 L . 06. 2020,-qqd defend€jnrs erecitd(i. oema nd promissory note, il'l ': s 1 sEP 20?3 i . i '.,:', ., --'.-_.^; . 11^{,',, rr^ '*....} ;,. -:^.i .-,--.....::,.^. ,,'',-'.,.. ';, ..:..::::. :',,. ""

¶28

(oA.No.69/2023)

¶29

deed of hypothecation for all facilities dated 19.06.2020. The applicant bank restructured the existing credit Facirities i.e., working capital term loan facirity of Rs.14.00 lakhs, cash credit facirity of Rs.10.00 lakhs by carved out from 24.00 lakhs. After availing the loan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued demand notice on 23.02.2022 and possession notice on 28.O4.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 10.07.2023.

¶31

Shri Praveen Kumar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW. L and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.34.

¶32

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

prayed for?

¶36

The defendants were called To su bsta ntiate the case of the Applicaot official of the {

¶37

(oA.No.69/2023)

¶38

Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant 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 Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶39

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶40

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,11,5L,O1.O/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Fifty One thousand and Ten only) i.e.,

¶41

a) a sum of Rs.11,58,9L4/- under cash credit loan facility with further interest @ 14.90olo p.a from 12.O1.2023 till the date of fu ll and final realization;

¶42

b) a sum of Rs.56,67,609/- under term loan facility with further interest @ 14.9oo/o p.a from 12.or.2023 tiil the date of fuil and final realization;

¶43

c) a sum of Rs.14,27,072/- under GECL Covid_19 loan facility with further interest @ 11.50o/o p.a from 1,2.01.2023 till the date of

¶44

' full and final realization;

¶45

d) a sum of Rs,13,58,538/- under FITL loan facility with further

¶46

interest @ 10.20olo p,a from.12.01.2023 till the date of full and

¶47

.
i :
I
I'r ^ cfD i::.,/l
: ' .t' ,-,)
5
:-

¶48

(OA.No,69/2023)

¶49

e) a sum of Rs.15,38,877l_ under WCTL facility with further

¶50

interest @ 11.20% p.a from 12.01.2023 till the date of full and

¶51

final realization;

¶52

The Appricant bank is entitred to proceed against the hypothecated assets and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of its dues.

¶53

the Applicant Bank is also entiiled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of Defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶54

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

¶55

The Applicant sha, fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶56

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly.

¶57

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶58

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by h^er, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of Sept, 2023)

¶59

(G. GoPrcHAig; PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

..-:,:r i,.l i, iP'E'
'"..."iW,u\,,
a"i";"n .:ri;ti.'l

Bank of Maharashtra, v. M/S. Kasni Polymers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra, v. M/S. Kasni Polymers

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Venkateshwara Traders

State Bank of India versus Sri P. Sachin Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S Wellcare Clinics

State Bank of India versus Sri Kancharla Venkat Janga Reddy

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Sharma Papers Private Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Proveg Seeds and Genetics