Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sri Muluguri Anandam

DRT29 Oct 2024OA/141/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Indian Overseas Bank against its borrowers for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 25,03,441 with interest and costs, holding the bank entitled to realize the debt from the defendants and their hypothecated property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 25,03,441 with interest; recovery certificate issued against defendants and hypothecated property.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Muluguri Anandam — Property and Title | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29H DAY OF OCTOBER' 20.24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No. !4L ol 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Hanamkonda Branch, Situated at D.No.2-5-614, D-mart side, lane Subedari, Hanamkonda, Telangana- 506 001. Represented by its Branch manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri MuluguriAnandam, s/o Sri Raja Veeru, aged about 52 years, occ: business,

¶10

R/o H. No.49-2 -172, Kothapet,

¶11

Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 006.

¶12

Mrs. MuluguriAnitha,

¶13

w/o Sri MuluguriAnandam,

¶14

aged about 45 years, occ: business, R/o H. No.49-2 -1L2, Kothapet, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 006.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

(oA. No.14112024)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,03,441l- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Four Hundred and Forty one only) with interest @ 13.20olo p.a(including penal interest@ 2olop.a) from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 and 2 are husband and wife availed term loan facility of Rs.21.00 lakhs for purchase of vehicle along with its accessories. The defendants executed demand promissory note dated 08.1.2024, copy of letter of installment, copy of letter of hypothecation agreement and copy of deed of hypothecation dated 08.01.2024. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 31.03.2021 and issued legal notice dated 20.12.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶23

DeFendants No.1 "ffi.,I exparte on 23.07.2024.
29rlil./fi/| :*
\l
,,&f;n$. -F;S,,
DDfl\l''r-..//

¶24

(oA. No.14112024)

¶25

Sri A. Sai Kumar Naik, Assistant Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.11.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

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?

¶28

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.11. 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.

¶29

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.25,O3,441l-^{(Rupees Twenty} Five Lakhs Three Tho r Hundred and Forty one only) with interest-,@;[ date of applicationtill the . i),lP ffi date of realization;-'.1$^t:--.' ilr.,^?9r,fiwl

¶30

(OA.No.141l2024)

¶31