Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Rama Plastics

DRT24 Oct 2024OA/136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by IDBI Bank Limited against a firm and its proprietor for recovery of outstanding loan dues, dismissing the borrowers defense regarding account classification and limitation. Court granted recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Applicant allowed to recover total sum of Rs.23,05,334.72 with future interest and proceed against properties of defendant No.2 and Firm.

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Rama Plastics — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24rHDAy OF OCTOBERT 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.136 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

IDBI Bank Limited, Branch office at H.No.4-60, Yellareddygudem, Cheruvugattu, Narketpallymandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana Represented by its power of Attorney holder / Asst. Gen manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Rama Plastics, Represented by its Proprietor, Plot no.2/C, IDA, Chityala, Gopilayapalli (V), Narketpalli(M), Nalgonda - 508 254.

¶10

Mr. Prakash Laudya, s/o HemaNaik, male, aged about 40 years, occ: business, H.No.6-9-54, Vivekananda nagar, Nalgonda, Telangana state

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

Sri V. Suresh Babu
Sri N.V. Pruthvi Raju
r.,r, ,ii t osf,r^.r
<tatEV

¶15

For the Defendants..l:

¶16

(oA.No.136/2023)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,O5,334.12ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Five thousand Three hundred rhirty Four and paise Seventy two only) i.e., (Rs.20,76,758.03ps for cash credit + Rs.2,28,576.69ps for term roan account) with future interest @ 18% p.awith monthry rests from date of appricaiion tiI the date of realization;

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 avaired cash credit facility of Rs.25.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 27.02.2017 and executed demand promissory note and hypothecation cum loan agreement dated 16.03.2018. The defendants again availed term loan facility of Rs.3,99,000/_ vide sanction letter dated 08.06.2020 and executed demand promissory note delivery letter, supplemental hypothecation cum loan agreement, common guarantee deed all documents dated 08.06.2020. The defendants agreed to repay the cash credit amount together with interest at !20/o p.a and arso agreed to pay additionar interest @ 2olo p.a on overdue/ delays/ defaults of money payable. SubsequenUy the applicant existing cash credit limit from Rs.25.OO lakhs sa nction letter $;;m,",,? dated 29.06.2020.

¶20

(oA. No.136/2023)

¶21

It is submitted by the Appricant 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. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the appricant bank issued regar notice dated 31.01.2023 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isof Rs'23,05,334.72ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Five thousand Three hundred Thirty Four and paise Seventy two only) i.e., (Rs.20,76,758.03ps for cash credit + Rs.2,2g,576.69ps for term loan account) with future interest @ 1Bo/o p.a with monthly rests from date of apprication tirr rearization. Hence the oA.

¶22

2' The Defendants No.1 and 2 fired written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It was agreed that defendants availed cash credit loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.3.99 lakhs. It is contended that the defendants were regular in paying the installments and contended that the Applicant bank did not follow the RBI guiderines whire crassifying the account as NpA. It is further submitted that statement of accounts are fabricated and not properry certified under the provisions of the Bankers Book of Evidence act. Hence I of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself led any documents. 'i 2qocT'mi Y ., :,:) 3 oQ s!sr, , i tii&,*n".lff";":. -,r

¶23

(oA.No.136/2023)

¶24

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶27

ii) To what relief ?

¶28

Point No.i):

¶29

5' sri Abhishek Naini, Asst. Generar Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.20 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶30

6' AW'1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.2 examined himserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway herpfur to him. The defendants No.1 & 2 having taken the prea that the appricant bank did not folow the RBI guiderines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the bank makes crear that a, the rerevant documents are executed by the d normal course of tra nsaction. contended that pa rticula rs made in the OA are not dri -,o,. :,u-. _corre.c^ojr: c rt .^{ts*qias agper the statement} of accounts, re ddreno2aJ[lr'Jt,,.oe,li. op a yv tr h ep OA na claim.rrrim

¶31

(oA.N0.136/2023)

¶32

Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants No.1 and 2 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entifled to claim the OA amount from d efe nd a nts. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶33

Point No.ii)

¶34

7' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as u n der:

¶35

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,O5,334.72ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Five thousand Three hundred Thirty Four and paise Seventy two onty) i.e., (Rs.20,76,758.03ps for cash credit + Rs.2,28,576.69ps for term roan account) with future interest @ 1g% p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶36

8' The Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entit

¶38

of the OA.
d<br>10. The Applicant shall file
fptst me ks from the date
ir
of receipt of order. ,t ii *,
".-.fom

¶39

(oA.No.136/2023)

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

L2. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the p'A', transcribeg ty her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24thday ot Oct, 2024)

¶43

sdl-

¶44

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

'r 24flfitnnl I
'. l-:
*p#"

¶46

fry,yE coPY
,1( Ur--* z ,'
/ ef un""Y. i-t, |!'11FRA8AF R",gt,"" - - L."- l, " /'v lr.

¶47

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Rama Plastics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Rama Plastics

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vistan Next Gen Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Kailas Sulochana versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus the Adilabad Expressway Private Limited

Bank of India versus M/S. Bahujan Rythu Mitra Sangam

Narsing Rao Mekala versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Muluguri Anandam