Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Sunali Associates

DRT28 Feb 2024OA/176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of Rs. 83.25 lakhs. The loan account was classified NPA, and the bank established its claim through documentary evidence. Relief was granted for principal, interest, and realization from hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Debt recovery certificate issued for Rs. 83,25,489/- plus interest at 12.70% p.a. from 22.05.2022 till realization.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Sunali Associates — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.175 ol 2022

¶5

Between :

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra, Kachiguda branch, Hyderabad, Telangana State Represented by lts Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sunali Associates, A partnership firm, represented By its partners, Plot no.1, Flat no.A1, doyen devine, LIC colony, Sri Nagar colony, Hyderabad - 500 073.

¶10

Shri Ravella Pradeep, S/o Sri VenkataSubbaiah, Aged major, occ: business, C/o Aruna Motors, H.No.4B-10-12, NH5, frontage road, Opp NTR Health University, Sri Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada -520 008.

¶11

A.P. Krishna Dist.

¶12

SmtRavellaHyma, w/o Sri Pradeep, aged major, occ: business, C/o Aruna Motors, H.No.48-10-12,NH5, frontage road, Opp NTR Health University, Sri RamachandraNagar, Vijayawada -520 008. A.P. Krishna Dist.

¶13

SmtRachapakaMallamma, W/o Sri Maisaiah, aged maj Occ: business, Anajpur villa

2 I rEB z,l]zt

fu*

(oA. No.17612022 )

Hayath nagarmandal, Ranga Reddy district.

¶18

Sri RachapakaMaisaiah, s/o Sri Veeraiah, aged major, occ: business, Anajpur village, Hayathnagarmandal, Ranga Reddy district.

¶19

Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee For the Defendants 1,2,4 & 5 Exparte Defendant no.3 M/s. KAK Associates

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.83,25,489/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty Five thousand Four hundred and Eighty Nine only) with further interest @ 12.70o/o p.a with monthly rests from 22.05.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as described in the schedule "A& B" to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the a the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 .f.. i ...:k, v ,i represented by defendant no.2 as its managing :partner availe credit loan facility of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. as guarantors and

¶24

(oA.No.17612022)

¶25

executed guarantee agreements. Defendants hypothecated the stocks, book debts and equitable mortgage of immovable properties more fully described in the schedule to oA. The defendants executed composite deed of hypothecation dated 27.t2.20t3. To secure loan facility, the defendant no.1, defendants, 2,4 and 5 deposited their title deeds on 30.12.2013. 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 30.09.2020 and issued recall notice dated 10.12.2020. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants I,2,4 and 5 called absent and set exparte on 24.03.2023.Ld counsel for defendant no.3 filed vakalath but not filed Written statement.

¶27

Shri Praveen Mahto, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.22.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

(OA.No.17612022)

¶30

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶31

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶32

Defendants !,2,4 and 5 ca[ed absent and set exparte. counser for defendant no.3 filedvakalath but failed to file ws. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.22. 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 entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendants are jointly and severally riable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.83,2S,4A9/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty Five thousand Four hundred and Eighty Nine onty) with further interest @ 12.70o/o p.afrom 22.os.2o22till realization.

¶35

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in schedule^..A&B,, to OA towards realization of tpe''de-bt du"-.-r', ,. rr".

¶36

(oA.No.176 /2022)

¶37

the Applicant Bank is also entitled 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.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is entiUed to the costs of the oA.

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P'A.,, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of Feb, 2024)

¶43

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

i:v*:2* ,,rf;if;gfffi,

¶45

\r -.' '>)
'%*

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Sunali Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Sunali Associates

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Aam Hospitals

Canara Bank versus M/S. Oasis Interior

Sri Akku Srinivas Rao versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Raghavendra Moulding Doors

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vishwa Apparel

Canara Bank versus M/S. Blue Max Impex (India) Private Limited