Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Pharmatech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

DRT4 Nov 2024OA/113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.113 of 2024, the Dr. Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of loans amounting to Rs.2.65 crores. The bank established its case via its Chief Manager's testimony against absent defendants. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.2,65,96,558.62 including interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; recovery certificate issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Pharmatech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2c.24

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.113 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Indian Overseas Bank, Marredpally branch, Plot no.48, Sarvasuki Society, West Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026. Represented by its Constituted General Power of Attorney

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Pharmatech Solutions Pvt Ltd, Represented by its Director Syed Sameera, Plot no.29B, Phase-V, Cherlapally, Hyderabad - 500021.

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Survey no.306 & 307, Janagampally (village), Bhiknoor (mandal) Nizamabad district, TS.

¶11

Mrs. Syed Sameera, W/o Mr. K. Phaneendra Kumar, Aged major, female, flat no.G-3, D. No.6-3-609 to 672/ G3, Ground floor in Apex Residency, Near PrajaParishad Office, Anandnagar colony, Khairathabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶12

(OA.No.113/202a)

¶13

Mr. E.N. Bala Kumar, S/o E. Narasinga Rao, Aged major, male, plot no.2, Vajra enclave, old Alwal, Near Ambedkarnagar bus stop, Hyderabad - 500 010.

¶14

Mr. Chandra Sekhar B.K. s/o B. Eshwaraiah, aged major, male, D.No. 10-6-40/4/7, Mamillagudem, Khammam- 507 001 .

¶15

Mr. K. Sudheer Karna, Aged major, male, D. No. 2- 10-536, Teachers Colony, Waddepally, Warangal - 506 370. Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju For the Defendants Expa rte

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,65,96,658.62ps (Rupees Two Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Ninety Six thousand Six Hundred Fifty Eight and paise Sixty two only) i.e., a sum of Rs.2,59,29,861/under cash credit with interest @ 11.650/o p.a and a sum of Rs.6,66,797.62ps under term lobn account with interest @ 9.25% p.a fir0 e date of realization and in default for sale :,; ;/ escribed in the schedules "A to C" to ,, ffi#r"; Pf€ 2I JAt,t zo25^* ? )

¶19

(OA No.113/2024)

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Company and defendants No.2 to 5 stood as guarantors availed cash credit of Rs.240 lakhs and term loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs in 202L. The defendants executed demand promissory note, letter of hypothecation, guarantee for credit facility and letter of continuity dated 17.06.2021. Defendants 2 and 3 created mortgages over respective properties which are detailed in schedules A to C to OA. Defendant no.2 created mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of A schedule property. Defendant no,3 created mortgage in respect of schedule B and C properties. 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 12.06.2023 and issued demand notice dated 13.06.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants No.1 to 5 called absent and set exparte on 18.10.2024.

¶22

Sri P. JagannadhaRao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which .t7

¶23

{,'f'^,w rdtrre uO. edunselr"f^{}</sup> tA,\ Applicant Bank. J^{z 3 JAN zozs} l,; rn .,.:!}

¶24

(oA. No.113/2024)

¶25

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?

¶26

Defendants remained 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.17. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶27

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,65,96,558.62ps (Rupees Two Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Ninety Six thousand Six Hundred Fifty Eight and paise Sixty two only) i.e., a sum of Rs.2,59,29,861/under cash credit with interest @ 11.650lo p.a and a sum of Rs.6,66,797.62ps under term loan account with interest @ 9.25% p.a from 18.01.2024 till the date of realization;

¶28

The Appli entitled to proceed against the mortgaged prope schedule "A to C" to OA towards

¶29

(OA. No.113/2024)

¶30

The Applicant Bank is arso entiiled 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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., trans_cribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me rn the open court on this the 4th day of Nov, 2024)

¶36

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶37

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

ff%"\
'A 2tJ[ilzffi :

¶39

wfrykr Asst'49gtsra'. ,- DPT-|.^{ilmEF^v'}

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Pharmatech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Pharmatech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Darga Sudhakar Reddy

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mandla Srinu

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kisan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Yesh Fitness and Studio

State Bank of India versus Smt. Pasupuleti Jothi (Died)

State Bank of India versus M/S. Yuvaasna Foods