Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S.Hanuman Enterprises

DRT11 Jul 2024OA/106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's office application for recovery of principal, interest, and costs against the loan defaulters and guarantor, directing enforcement against secured assets and properties.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs.37,50,938.75 with future interest and permitting enforcement against secured and unsecured assets.

Bank of India versus M/S.Hanuman Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.1O6 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of India, Warangal Main branch, Warangal district, TS Represented by its authorized officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Hanuman Enterprises, Prop: Akuthota Santhosh Babu, Aged about 41 years, occ: business, At 3-7-68, Gudibandal,

¶10

Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 001.

¶11

Mr. Akuthota Santhosh Babu, s/o Sri Soma Narasaiah, aged 41 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.3-5, Ramannagudem, Nellikudduru,

¶12

Warangal - 506 368.

¶13

Mr. Gottim ukkalaPrabhakar, S/o Ramaiah, occ: business, Aged about 48 years, R/o H.No.2-10-866, teacher's

¶14

Colony, Warangal, TS - 506 001.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant Nageswara Rao
For the Defendants
ffin
r, ZE* llJULrm{ x
,?Jr- .,, \l
W--r-ry

¶17

(oA.No.106 of 2023)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.37,50,93g.75ps (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Eight and paise Seventy Five only) ie.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.3,41,230.40ps against defendants 1 & 2 with future interest @ 11.20olo p.a and penal interest @ 2olo p.awith monthly rests from the date of apprication tiil the date of rearization ;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.34,09,708.35ps against defendants 1 to 3 with future interest @ 11.20olo p.a and penal interest @ 2% p.awith monthry rests from the date of apprication tiil the date of realization;

¶22

and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated assets and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary firm represented by defendant no.2 avaired term roan of Rs.5.00 rakhs vide sanction retter dated 09.12'20L5. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the roan avaired by defendants 1 & 2. Defendant no.1 executed L 516 multipurpose agreement, demand prom bearer letter dated vi d.^{-- '-B} 09.12.2015. The defen &6^also $iTaited credit facility of Rs.25.00 lakhs vide #ctio1 i rg1pr262trated. 9.02.2076 and .'d. etl ,, ^^CJ KaurEW

¶24

(OA.No.106 of 2023)

¶25

hypothecated the stocks more fully described in schedule to OA. Defendant no.3 created equitable mortgage of deposit of title deeds in respect of schedule property on 29.02.20t6. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 04.08.2020 and issued demand notice dated 19.03.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants No.1 to 3 cailed absent and set exparte on L6.0L.2024.

¶27

Sri B. Srinivas, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.28.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

6' 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?

¶30

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To su-bstantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, the Applicant Bank was exa m ined and he as Ex.A1 to A.28. In view of the above, Bank has established

¶31

(oA.No.106 of 2023 )

¶32

their claim made in the OA aga inst the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.37,50,93g.75ps (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Eight and paise Seventy Five only) ie.,

¶35

a) A sum of Rs.3,41,230.40ps against defendants 1 & 2 with future interest @ 11.20% p.afrom the date of application till the date of realization ;

¶36

b) A sum of Rs.34,09,708.35ps against defendants 1 to 3 with future interest @ 11.20olo p.afrom the date of application till the date of realization ;

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitred to proceed against the hypothecated assets and mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants and properties of defendant

¶39

no.1 firm towards rea li

¶40

The Applicant Bank

¶41

l"r)

¶42

(OA.No.106 of 2023)

¶43

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

¶44

L4, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of July,2024)

¶47

sdl_ (G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

//3-
{J* .B
i. 11 JUT ml
',..,'
\t:'i'"h^. /n, i'
'-.'
.-.at

¶49

"Tblw:n1;--'(A.tYRcfistrar

Bank of India v. M/S.Hanuman Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S.Hanuman Enterprises

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

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri.Pati Siva Narayana Murthy

Indian Bank versus Mr. S . Ajay Kumar

State Bank of India versus Ark Logistics

State Bank of India versus M/S. Aja Solar a Proprietary Concern

Union Bank of India versus Malineni Sayamma Poultry Firm

State Bank of India versus Sri Pailla Vikram Reddy