Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Megha Fabrications

DRT25 Apr 2023OA/96/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Debt Recovery Tribunal OA No.96/2022, the applicant Bank sought recovery of dues and proceeds from hypothecated movables. The court, hearing the matter exparte, held the Bank established its claim and allowed the admission.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of total sum of Rs.87,06,199.12ps with future interest @10.60% from 01.07.2021, right to realize debt from hypothecated movables and properties of defendants, and costs.

Bank of Baroda versus Megha Fabrications — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 25rH DAy OF APRIL,2O2g

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.96 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Hyderabad Main branch, Situated at ground floor, RBVR Reddy hostel compound, Hanuman compound, Hanuman Tekdi, 4-L-366, Abids circle, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶7

Represented by its Asst. General Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Megha Fabrications, Represented by its proprietor Mrs.AnithaKilaru, plot no.2, S.No.t50/A, 150/AA, 1S2 & 178,

¶11

Peddamberpet, Hayath nagar,

¶12

Rangareddy district - 501 505.

¶13

Mrs.AnithaKitaru, w/o Rama Rao K, aged major, occ: business,^plot no.2, S.No.LSO/A, 150/AA, 152 & 178, Peddamberpet, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy district - 501 505.

¶14

2 5 APR 208

¶15

Counsel for the^parties:

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

For the Defendants

¶18

Sri G. VenkatSriMaithreya Exparte

¶19

(OA.No.95/2022)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.g7,O6,1g9.l2ps (Rupees Eighty seven lakhs six thousand one Hundred Eighty Nine and paise twelve only) with future interest @10.60yo from 01.11.2021 ti[ the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a sore proprietary concern represented by its sore proprietor defendant no.2 avaired overdraft roan of Rs.62.00 lakhs and term roan facirity of Rs.38.00 rakhs vide sanction retter dated 11.03.2019 on security of hypothecation of various current assets (incruding stock, semi finished goods, materiar etc). pursuant to the sanction of roans, the defendants executed Dp note for Rs.62.00 lakhs, letter of continuing security, composite hypothecation agreement, retter of undertaking, demand promissory note for Rs.38.00 lakhs, letter of authority and general undertaking iling the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply on, hence the applicant bank was constrained to as NPA on 2302.2022 and issued recall notice z'F'fi'il frfi5 ot clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

(oA.No.96/2022)

¶24

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 01.02.2023.

¶25

Sri K.V. Ravi prasad, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence entitled to recover the claim made in the

¶30

¶31

5 APfl^?fln R the orese allowed with costs, as under: 9. The l!,${arejointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.g7,O6,1g9.l2ps (Rupees

¶32

¶33

(oA.No.96/2022)

¶34

Eighty Seven lakhs Six thousand One Hundred Eighty Nine and paise twelve only) with future interest @10.60% from

¶35

0t.17.2021 till realization.

¶36

i) The Applicant Bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecated movabres as described in the schedure to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

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

¶39

iv) The Appricant sha[ fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the p A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2Sth day of April., 2023)

¶43

sd/-

¶44

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER '.:.:-rJmil

¶45

Bank of Baroda v. Megha Fabrications

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Megha Fabrications

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. K Surendra

Kirtikumar Jethmal Bafna versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Tusli Seed Farm

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Shri Goukul Ji Aahar

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Jwels and Gems

Punjab National Bank versus Pushpa Memorial Education and Charitable Trust and others