Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nandita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

DRT5 Dec 2024OA/154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank against borrowers and guarantors for recovery of a disputed loan sum of approximately Rs. 1.15 Crore including principal, interest, and penalties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,15,12,397.96 less recovered amount, with interest; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged assets and other properties; issue of reco

Canara Bank versus M/S. Nandita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THrS THE 5rH DAY OF DECEMBER,²⁰²⁴

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

OA.No.154 of 2(J23

Between:

Canara Bank

(Formerly Syndicate Bank) N.S. Road branch, D.No.5-3-1062, Veerji towers, Osmangunj^area, Opp Hotel Jewel^ResidencY, Near Old PS Begum bazar,

¶7

Hyderabad - 500 001.^TS Represented bY its Chief^Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Nandita Enterprises^{Pvt Ltd,} Rep by its managing^directorSmt TallamSridevi, having^{its regd office} And administrative office^at

¶11

H.No.B-5^-57 15,^{DeviNilaYoffi,} Near Vicinity^{hospital,Old Bowenpally,} Secunderabad -^{500 011, TS}

¶12

And the factorY^loacatedat Sy.No.224/t^{and 2291L,} Moglicharla village,^Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal.

¶13

SmtTallamSridevi, W/o late TallamVenkateshwara^Rao, Director of M/s.^{Nandita Enterprises} Pvt ltd, aged 54 Years,^{occ: business,} R/o F.No.505, Silver^SPrings, Jayabheri Park,^{OPP: JaYabheri} Water tank, KomPallY,^Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶14

,/^

¶15

(oA. No.1s4l2023 )

¶16

2 Sri Tallam Kumar Kaushik S/o late TallamVenkateswara Rao, Aged 35 years, occ: business, H.No.8-5-5715, Devi Nilayam, Near Vicinity hospital, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011,^TS

¶17

SmtTallamNandita D/o Late Tatta mve'n kateswa^ra Rao, aged major, occ: business, R/o F.No.505, Silver SPrings, Jayabheri^park, OPP:^JaYabheri Water tank, KomPallY,^Medchal Malkajgiri District,

¶18

Defenda nts

¶19

Counsel for the^{Pa rties:}

¶20

For the Applicant

¶21

For the Defendant^{No.1 to 4}

Sri AVSS Prasad

Sri C. Sreedhar

ORDER

1'TheApplicantBankfiledthepresentoAagainStDefendantsfor recovery of a total^{sum of Rs.1,15,12,397'96ps (Rupees One}

¶26

CroreFifteenLakhsTwelveThousandThreeHundredNinety

¶27

Seven and^{paise Ninety six only) i'e',}

¶28

¶29

a) A sum of^{Rs.97,06,301.76psunder S-O-D-limit with interest} 12.650/o^p.a with^{monthly rests from 23'O3'2022 till the date} of realization;

¶30

b) A sum of Rs.I2,7fr ECL laonwith interest @ 9 .4o/o P.a with 04.2023 till the date of realization

¶31

c) A sum of 15.8o/o P'a realization

¶32

loanwith interest @ .2023 till the date of

¶33

'.rit

¶34

(OA. No.1s412023)

¶35

and in default for sale of^{mortgaged properties andhypothecated} movables as described^{in the schedule"A (item No.I to VIII & B" to} oA.

¶36

As per the averments^{in the application, the Applicant Bank} states that the defendant^{No.1 is a Companyand defendant no'2} was its director availed^{loan of Rs.60.00lakhsand offeredschedule} detailedproperties.Thereaftertheloanlimitswereenhancedin 2015 and the defendant^{no.1 availed SOD limit of Rs'170'00lakhs} against the^{hypothecation of stocks in trade and book debts and} mortgageofimmovablepropertiesasmentionedinthescheduleto OA which was^{succeededby defendantsno'2 to 4 on demiseof Sri} TallamVenkateswara^{Rao vide letter dated 13'05'2015'The} defendant no.1^{along with late Sri Tallamvenkateshwara Rao and} defendant^{no.2 executed compositehypothecationagreement'} comprehensive^{pre-post shipmentagreementand guarantee} agreement^{dated 16.05.2015.The properties mortgagedby late sri} Tallamvenkateswara^{Rao availed by defendant no'1 are securedby} deposit of title^{deedson 26.72.2013' Due to Covid-19situation'the} defendant no.1^{availedGECL loan of Rs'18'00 lakhs on 03'09'2020}

¶37

and the loan^{documents were} cum deed of^hYpothecatio Bank. The^defendant above three^accounts,

¶38

defendants agreement favour of APPlica^nt tin u ed oan operationsⁱⁿ ara Rao,^{who is}

¶39

e,,s$

¶40

(oA. No.1s4l2023)

¶41

Managing director and^guarantor for the^{loan availed by defendant} No.1 Company demised and^{his liability was succeededby his widow,} son and daughter i.e.,^{defendants No.2 to 4 being the legal heirs as} successors of immovable^properties.

¶42

It is submitted by the^{Applicantbank that the Defendants} have availed the said^{loan facility and failed to keep up the} repayment schedule,^{as such the accountwas classified as NPA'} InspiteofdemandsmadebyApplicantthedefendantshavenot regularized the account,^{and the applicant bank issued notices but} thedefendantsdidnotcomeforwardtorepaytheSame.Thetotal claim of Applicant^{against defendantsisRs'1,15,12,397'96ps} (Rupees One Crore Fifteen^{Lakhs TwelveThousandThree} HundredNinetySevenandpaiseNinetysixonly)Withinterest@ t2.65o/o^p.a; @^{9.4o/o p.a and @15.80o/op.d respectively with} monthly rests from^{23.03.2022and O1'4'2023 tillrealization'} Hence the OA.

¶43

The Defendants^{No.1 to 4 filed writtenstatementadmitting that the} defendantno.lisaCompanyanddefendantno.2wasitsdirector. They admitted that^{the defendantsavailedSOD limit of Rs'170'00} n trade and book^debts lakhs against the^hYPothecatio ned in the schedule and mortgage of^immova on demise of^Sri to OA which^was y defen8Ents no.2 TallamVenkateswara^Ra Applicant bank |,^{.[,u.Jf[lBL1,.g} W*#

¶44

(oA. No.1s4l2023)

¶45

charged higher rate of^{interest which is against the directivesof RBI} guidelines.Hence prayed for dismissal of^OA'

¶46

The Applicant^{Bank in supportof its claim, filed evidence affidavit} duly sworn in by^{SriM. Venkatesh, Manageras AW'1 and through} her marked 30 documents^{as Ex.A.1 to A'30' Defendants no'2 & 3} examinedthemselvesasDW.landDW.2butnodocuments produced bY them.

¶47

I have^{perused the documents placedon record'}

¶48

Now, the^{points that arise for consideration are:}

¶49

i) Whether the^{Applicant Bank has proved its claim as madein} OA against^{the defendants ?}

¶50

ii) To what relief^?

¶51

Point No.i):

¶52

AW.1 who^{was examined on behalf of the Applicant haveclearly} deposed the^{liability of the defendants'ExhibitsA' 1 to A'30} exhibitedbytheApplicantbankclearlyestablishtheliabilityofthe rt satisfaction^{-memo stating} defendants,^{TheAPP|icantbankfil} sale of mortgaged that a sum of^{Rs.26.OO I} properties (Schedule A( unde FAESI Act. :^osoEczozf ?]

¶53

(OA. No.1sal2023)

¶54

AW.1 was not cross examined by^{the defendants.Even though} defendants no.2&3^{examined themselvesas DW.1and DW.2, their} evidence is in noway^{helpfulto them. The defendants No'2& 3} havingtakenthepleathattheapplicantbanknotfollowedtheRBl guidelines and charged high^{rate of interest, failed to place any} substantial^proof to^{that effect.Moreover, a perusalof the} documents^{executed by the bank makesclear that all the relevant} documents are^{executedby the defendantsin the normal course of} transaction.^{The defendants No. 2 &3 very vaguely contended that} particulars made in the^{OA are not correct'But as per the statement} of accounts, the^{defendants are liable to pay the OA claim'} Considering all^{the circumstances,I am of opinion that the defense} taken by the defendants^{No.2 & 3 is not tenable' Hence the} applicant bank^{is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants'} Therefore, the^{OA claim deserves to be allowedagainst the} defendants.

¶55

Point No.ii)

¶56

B. In the result,^{the present Original applicationis allowed with costsas} under:

¶57

The Defendants^{No.1 to 4 are jointly and severallyliable to pay the} Applicant Bank a^{total sum of Rs.1,15,12,397'96ps(RupeesOne} Crore Fifteen^{Lakhs Twelve} T6,8& ffif unored Ninetv seven and^{paise Ninety tr,{r#,'";8 tU} -"\l l- nsofcrrrzr ,r,^ulUEL4lT{ ;jl .^i \ e'-6. ,$;;;1.ii,,;JJ -Y,

¶58

(oA. No.1s4l2023)

¶59

LESS A SUM OF RS.26.OO^{LAKHS RECOVERED BY SALE OF}

¶60

PROPERTIES^{(ScheduleA(item No.s I to III).}

¶61

a) A sum of Rs.97,06,301.76ps^{under SOD limit with interest @} t2.65o/o^p.a from 23.03.2022^{till the date of realization;}

¶62

¶63

b) A sum of Rs.12,70,573.58ps^{under GECL loanwith interest} 9.4o/o^{p.a rests from 01.04.2023 till the date of realization;} @

¶64

c) A sum of Rs.5,35,522.62ps^{underRFITL loanwithinterest} 15.8olo^p.a from^{01.04.2023till the date of realization;}

¶65

i) The applicant^{bank isentitled toproceedagainst the} hypothecated^{assetsand mortgaged propertiesas describedin} schedules^{"A (item no.IV to VIII)and B" to OA'}

¶66

ii) the Applicant^{Bank is also entitled to proceedagainst the person} and^{properties of defendants No'2 to 4 and propertiesof} defendant^{no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due'}

¶67

iii) Consequent^{to this order, the pendingIA's if any stand disposed'} iv) The^{Applicant Bank is entitledto the costs of the OA'}

¶68

v) The Applicant^{shall file a cost memowithin two weeks from the} date of receiPt^{of order'}

¶69

g. Issue Recovery^{certificate accordingly'}

¶70

copy of the^{order to the parties concerned'}

¶71

$ 5 0E[
'0?l

¶72

bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
'2024).
sd/_
(G. GOPICHAND)
-TRUE COP^Y PRESIDING OFFICER
O,,. g.4*--),*
"' ;{.rw"
lss|- m strar
DfT-t. HYDEP^- '' n

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nandita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nandita Enterprises 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri. Manda Srinivas

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vajra Parboiled Rice Mills Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Ganta Chandra Mohan

Indian Bank versus M/s. Gokul Brick Industry

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Shaik Khaja Pasha

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India