Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Turaab and Sons Private Ltd.

DRT19 Feb 2024OA/103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originating Application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of default loans from M/s. Turaab and Sons Private Ltd and its guarantors. The Tribunal held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sums, future interest, and costs, and authorized the sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,63,84,481/- plus future interest and costs; bank authorized to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged assets.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Turaab and Sons Private Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.1O3 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra, Kachiguda branch, Hyderabad, Telangana Represented by its Chief manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Turaab and Sons Private Ltd, (SMIL ON DENTAL CARE) Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,

¶10

Flat no.519, 99 PARC Anuhar

¶11

Apartments, Road no.01,

¶12

Alkapoor, Nekhnampur,

¶13

Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶14

Mr. ShaikMohammed Zameer, Male, s/o Sri Shaik Mohammed Zaheer, aged major, occ: business, Flat no.519, 99 PARC Anuhar Apartments, Road no.01, Alkapoor, Nekhnampur,

¶15

Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶16

SmtShaikYazdani Begum, Female, W/o Sri Shaik Mohammed Zameer, aged major, occ: business, H.No. 76-L-24/ 106, flat no.403, Vijaya Sri enclave, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad - 500 059.

¶17

Sri Syed Mehmood Hussain, Male, S/o Late Syed Ishraq Hussain, Aged major, occ: business,

¶18

H. No. 12-2-800/96, Dilshadnagar

¶19

Colony, Beside Madina Masjid,

¶20

(OA.No.103 of 2023)

¶21

RethiBowli, Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶22

Sri Syed Ahmed Hussain, Male, S/o Late Syed Ishraq Hussain, aged major, occ: business, H. No. 12-2-800/96, Dilshadnagar Colony, Beside Madina Masjid, RethiBowli, Hyderabad - 500 028. Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the Parties:

¶24

For the Applicant Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee For the Defendants No.1,2,4 & 5 Sri Abhijeet Talwar Defendant no.3 Exparte

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,63,84,481/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty Three Lakhs Eighty four thousand Four hundred and Eighty one only) i.e.,

¶27

a) A sum of Rs.1,37,20,783/- towards Term Loan-1 facilitywith furtherinterest @ 14.650/o p.a with monthly rests from 17.01.2023 till the date of realization;

¶28

b) A sum of Rs.65,50,290/- towards Term loan - Ilwith further interest @ 14.650lo p.a with monthly rests from 17.01.2023 till the date of realization;

¶29

c) A sum of Rs.34,61,337l- . towards^...; GECL Covid-19with ,,-,,,i,"r',',..,, ' .,

¶30

furtherinterest @ 7L.25o/o.tp.a *I{fJ monthii, rests from

¶31

17.01.2023 till the date of r€iaHzatioT;S Frir ril4

¶32

, ') . -l: .:,,' z,i.. .' : .ii:.. -.::

¶33

(OA.No.103 of 2023)

¶34

d) A sum of Rs.26,52,071/- towards FITL loan facilitywith further interest @ 10.20olo p.a with monthly rests from L7.01.2023 fll the date of realization;

¶35

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

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a^private Limited Company represented by defendant no.2 as Chairman and managing Director availed term loan facility of Rs.140 lakhs against hypothecation of medical equipments and machinery and equitable mortgage of immovable property more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendants No.2 to 5 stood as guarantors and executed various documents. Defendants again availed term loan II facility of Rs.60.00 lakhs for expansion of clinics. To secure the loan facilities provided to defendant no.1., the defendants No,2,4 and 5 extended the mortgage of immovable properties more fully described in application B schedule properties. Again the defendants availed GECL ofRs.35.00 lakhs against additional charge on existing collateral security by hypothecation of equipment machinery. After availing the loan facilities, the to comply the terms of sanction, hence the to classify the account as NPA a

¶37

¶38

(OA.No.103 of 2023)

¶39

Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶40

Ld Counsel for defendants No.1,2,4 and 5 filed vakalath but did not file Written Statement. Defendant no.3 called absent and set exparte.

¶41

Shri Pravin Kumar Mahato, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.46.

¶42

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶43

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶44

Ld counsel for defendants No.1,2,4,5 filed vakalath but did not file Written statement. Defendant no.3 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 4.46. In view of the above, licant Bank has established ..1:^{"..a (i} . r.._ *r;

¶45

their claim made fr'ttre OAi.dainsd nts and hence the lil,v e? s? 2\ tif,, t* l*i-a lgtEBzTzt hr ' '-,,r. h.I iis . 4 -osr,

¶46

(OA.No.103 of 2023)

¶47

Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶48

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

¶49

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,G3,g4,4gL/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty Three Lakhs Eighty four thousand Four hundred and Eighty one only) i.e.,

¶50

a)A sum of Rs.1,37,20,7831- towards Term Loan_1 facility with further interest @ 14.650lo p.afrom L7.or.2oz3 tiil the date of realization;

¶51

b) A sum of Rs.65,50,290l- towards Term loan - II with further interest @ 14.650lo p.afrom 17.01.2023 till the date of realization;

¶52

c) A sum of Rs.34,61,337l- towards GECL Covid-19 with further interest @ 11.25% p.afrom t7.0t.2023 till the date of realization;

¶53

d) A sum of Rs.26,52,071l- towards FITL loan facility with furtherinterest @ 10.20olo p. from !7.01.2023 till the date of

¶54

realization;

¶55

6%--"x
e lsrEBm ;
%,'*'#

¶56

(oA.No.103 of 2023)

¶57

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶58

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶59

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

¶60

13' The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶61

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶63

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of Feb, 2024)

¶64

(k*"8
ffi ffi'"B*
J lsFEBzmf :
, F{t ..-{ !
W*,,*-,S#

¶65

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

TRUE COP.
e.YL,_11
ui";rn'n

¶67

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Turaab and Sons Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Turaab and Sons Private Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr.Bheemisetty Nikhil Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Ravi Kiran Medical Agencies

State Bank of India versus Mr. Syed Nasir Hussain

State Bank of India versus M/S. Shrirama Polymers

State Bank of India versus Mr. Swami Naidu Bora

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lahari Industries