Allowed

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Mr. J. Gopal Rao

DRT10 Dec 2024OA/113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery against the respondents, the legal heirs and guarantor of a deceased borrower, directing payment of the principal sum with interest and permission to execute against collateral.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,11,73,932.60 with interest and penal charges; recovery certificate issued; bank entitled to proceed against collateral and personal properties.

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mr. J. Gopal Rao — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF DECEMBER,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.113 ot 2O23

¶5

Between:

¶6

The South Indian Bank ltd, Karimnagar b ra nch, Branch at D.No.2-6-299, A.K. Estates, IB Road, Mukarampura P.O, Karimnagar, TS - 505 001.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. J. Gopal Rao, s/o Late Joginipally Prasad Rao, aged major, male, R/o flat no.101, plot no.76, Honey Dew Homes, Friends colony, Chandanagar, Hyderabad - 500 050.

¶10

Mrs. D. Sravanthi, D/o Late Joginipally Prasad Rao, Aged major, female, R/o H.No.1-5-994/2, Plot no.401, Road no.3, Citizens colony, Old Alwal, Secunderabad - 500 010. "t\

¶11

? Mr. Joginipally Purushotam Rao, :^looEczrzr : Aged major, male, R/o H.No.1-1 ,ia. {,

¶12

Chandragiri, Near Sircilla, Karimnagar - 505 302, Ar9

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

For the Applicant

¶15

Sri M. Sunil Kumar

¶16

For the Defendant No.3

Expa rte

(oA.No.113/2023 )

Defendant No.1 & 2

Sri T. Srldhar Reddy

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,11,73,932.6ops (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Seventy three thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Two and paise Sixty only) i.e.,

¶23

a) A sum of Rs.1,09,72,884.67ps in respect of CCOL loan with further interest @ 12.600lo p.a with monthly rests and penal interest @ 2o/o p.a from 09.03.2023 till the date of realization;

¶24

b)A sum of Rs.2,01,047.93ps from in respect of FITL limit with further interest @ 12.60% p.a with monthly rests and penal interest @ 2o/o p.a from 09.03.2023 till the date of realization; and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that late J. Prasad Rao is the father of defendants No.1 and 2 availed credit facilities under CCOL - SME composite loan of Rs.48.00 lakhs which was secured by way of hypothecation of entire current assets and also by way of collateral security of mortgaged immovable property more fully described in the schedule B to OA. DeFendant no.3 stood as ment of cred it facilities and executed in 2017 the credit facility of Rs.48.00 ,H$r ,ng gfn 40?Fd tE lhs.zo.oo takhs on

¶26

(oA. No.113/2023)

¶27

77.08.20L7 and subsequenUy enhanced to Rs.83.00 lakhs on 27.09.20t8. Sri J. Prasad Rao expired leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2 as his only legal heirs and defendant no.3 being guarantor are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding dues to Applicant bank.

¶28

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 3t.3.202I and issued notices. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.1,11,73,932.60ps (Rupees One Crore Eteven Lakhs Seventy three thousand Nine Hundred rhirty Two and paise sixty onry) with further interest @ 12.60% p.a and 2o/o p.a penal interest with monthly rests from 09.03.2023 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶29

Defendant No.3 remained exparte. The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted that the defendants neither succeeded to nor inherited any movable or immovable a .Qevolving^{upon themfrom} their late father. Consequ r no responsibility ' lllu. 'rEferred 'i# the . \fence prayed for dismissal of OA. i; l o oEC 'uf ;j '.',1 :ii, '*"1Si {{o7;R{1}

¶30

(oA, No.113/2023)

¶31

3' The Applicant Bank in support of its craim, fired evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Sreehari puram, Manager as AW.1 and through her marked 36 documents as Ex.A. 1 to A.32. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to fire evidence Affidavit, hence the right of flling Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on t4.1t.2024.

¶32

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶33

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶34

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶35

ii) To what relief ?

¶36

Point No.i):

¶37

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendffiEI loan from the Applicant Bank, but faited to ,frO1frn. "ffir"t. amounts paid by the d efen d a nts a re cl ea fiykn ".t,T ",tilrf;fl" ent of account filed by Applicant Bank. [,[+e. OefenOants havdi placed any material ,.':.1^,'ri

¶38

Qar;rq#

¶39

(oA.No.113/2023)

¶40

documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶41

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not hypothecated the movablesand mortgaged immovable property. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.32 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶42

Point No.ii)

¶43

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶44

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,11,73,932.6ops (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Seventy three thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Two and paise Sixty only) i.e.,

¶45

a) A sum of Rs.1,09,72,884.67ps in respect of CCOL loan with further interest @ 1 09.03.2023 till the date of realization; ''#' &'h^ s * 10lEcwt : We**#

¶46

(oA.No.113/2023)

¶47

b) A sum of Rs.2,01,047.93ps from in respect of FITL limit with further interest @ 12.600lo p.a from 09.03.2023 till the date of realization;

¶48

a The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due. However, the applicant bank is entitled to proceed only to the extent of estate devolved upon the legal heirs / defendants L and 2 from the deceased late Jogininpally Prasad Rao.

¶49

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

L2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶53

Communicate a copy qf the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open day of Dec' 2024)

¶55

f .4, sd/-
/ /,t'
RUE coP' (G. GOPTCHAND)
100EC?m : .,4 PRESIDING OFFICER
a .e{ .') v
I :-J --,i i) ^j Assa.
DRT-I, HYa\loae''o'
it*,**"t# 6

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Mr. J. Gopal Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Mr. J. Gopal Rao

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Susheela Authomotive

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Dhanavath Balu Naik

Ms Umarani Commision Agent versus Omprakash Deora People Co. Operative

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Ganesh Rice Industries

Union Bank of India versus Mr. G. Srinivasa Sarma

K Padma versus Iifl Home Finance