Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. M/S Laxmi Constructions

DRT15 Sept 2023OA/871/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank's claim against Laxmi Constructions and Mundhagula Manyam for Rs. 73,37,377.07 plus future interest, costs, and proceed with hypothecated vehicle security.

What did the court decide?

Defendants bound to pay Rs. 73,37,377.07 with interest and costs; bank entitled to progra against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' assets; recovery certificate to be issued.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Laxmi Constructions — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: B7l OF 2022

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch office at 1-10-60/3, 3d Floor, Suryodaya Complex, Opp; Shoppers Stop, Begumpet, Secunderabad Mandal, Secunderabad District-500016, Telangana State. Rep by its Manager Legal.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

l,ls Laxmi Constructions,

¶8

Rep. by its Mundahagula Manyam, H. No. 4-36-163/C, Plot No.71, Venkateswara Nagar, Riksha Pullars Colony, Jagadgiri Gutta, Balanagar, (RR) District, Medchal, Secunderabad, Telangana State-500037.

¶9

I4undhagula Manyam, S/o. Beelhupally Mundhagula, Aged: 35 Years, Occ: Business,

¶10

H. No. 4-34-104, Venkateswara Nagar, Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500037.

¶11

Also at:

¶12

lvlundhagula Manyam, S/o. Beelhupally Mundhagula, Aged: 35 Years, Occ: Business, Plot No. 39, HUDA Residential Complex, MIG Nallagandla, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500019.

fu".o

oA.NO.871/2022

Mundhaqula^ManYam, s/o. BeelhuPallY^Mundhagula' aoed: 35 Years,^{Occ: Business'} r-rl rrro. +-:+-10+,^{venkateswara Nagar'} oir*in ioronv,^{(ulatpattv,Hvderabad'} Telangana^{State-500037'}

¶17

Also at:

¶18

Mundhagula^ManYam, s/o. BeelhuPallY^Mundhagula' aoed: 35 Years,^{Occ: Business'} iji"i rl..1s.^{HUbA Residentialcomplex'} MIG Nallagandla,^HYderabad' ...Defendants Telangana^{State-500016'}

¶19

: M.V.^KINI Counsel^{for the APPlicant}

Defendants

: Exparte

:: ORDER::

I. The Applicant^{Bankfiled the presentOA for the recoverya total} sum of^Rs'73,37,377 'olps^{as on 13 09'2022from the jointly} and severally^{with D2 and D3 v''ith future interest @ 24o/o p'a'} with monthly^{rests from the date of apPlicationtill the date of} realisation^{alongwith costs and in defaultfor sale of OA} hypothecated^vehicle'

¶24

Summons^{servedon Dl, whereas summonsof D2 served} through^paper Publication'^{They were set exparte on} O7.O3.2O23^{as called absent and no representation'}

¶25

The Applicant^{Bank examined VelamuriVenkataPavan Kumar'} Legal Manager,^{as Aw-1 and marked16 documents through} him as^{Ex. A.1toEx. A.t6'} /M'^r-b

¶26

¶27

oa.No.a7Ll2022

¶28

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

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶30

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule hypothecated vehicle?

¶31

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.16 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.A7UZO22 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.73,37,377.07ps with future interest @ 8.25olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

il) 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, y'\V^b

¶35

oA.NO.871/2022

¶36

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶37

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶38

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

¶39

q Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Didated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15s day of Septembe r, 2023) .

¶41

OW*o (AAtrEsHwAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. M/S Laxmi Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. M/S Laxmi Constructions

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

State Bank of India versus v a.Antony

Tripura Gramin Bank versus Ms Bijan Das

Niumec Engineering Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S Arhaan Enterprises

Anil Kumar Singh versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Mrs Lakho Devi versus Bank of India