Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd.

DRT3 Oct 2024OA/180/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Claim filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of a large outstanding loan, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application. Following an ex parte hearing where the bank proved its case through documentary evidence and the disputed loan accounts were not acknowledged, the Tribunal held the borrowers liable and awarded joint and several liability along with the principal, inte

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Applicant Bank the total sum of Rs.4,09,12,311/- plus future interest, costs, and recovery from mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 3Ro DAy oF ocroBER, 2oz4

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.18O ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra, Basheerbagh branch, Hyderabad, Telangana state Represented by its Br. Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Gogineni Media Pvt Ltd, Flat no.304, third floor, Surekha chambers, opp Metro Pillar No.c,1434, Leelanagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

¶9

Mr. Bala Krishna Gogineni, s/o Sri Nageshwara Rao Gogineni, male, aged 48 years, occ: business, villa no.76,^prime Meadows Kasani Kausalya Colony road, Bachupally, Hyderabad - 500 090. TS.

¶10

Mrs. Baby Lakshmi prasanna Daggupati, W/o Bala Krishna Gogineni,

¶11

Female, aged about 41 years, Occ: business, villa no.76, Prime Meadows Kasani Kausalya Colony road, Bachupal ,,, ,-F, ,-F,^,a

¶12

Hyderabad - 500 090.

¶13

,,, ,-F, ,-F, ,a
!,1, a nts
'*
x
::) 0 3 IcT ,nl
-';1i

¶14

(OA.180 of 2024)

¶15

Counsel for the parties; For the Applicant Sri Momin Mohammed Rafiq For the Defendants Exparte

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4,O9,12,311/_ (Rupees Four crores Nine Lakhs Twerve thousand rhree hundred and Ereven only) i.e.,

¶18

a) A sum of Rs.3,39,82,890/- under term loan account with future interest @ ll.lOo/o p.awith monthly rests along with penal interest @ 20lop.a additionar from date of apprication ti, the date of realization ;

¶19

b) A sum of Rs.19,73,556/_ under ECLGS account with future interest @ 7.50o/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2o/op.a additional from date of application till the date of realization;

¶20

c) A sum of Rs.49,55,865/_ under FITL account with future interest @ 7.30o/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2olop.a additional from date of application till the date of realization;

¶21

aged properties
; 0 3 ifl[,T ,8il r
q"'s)

¶22

(oA.180 of 2024)

¶23

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a private Limited company represented by its directors/ defendants 2 & 3 availed cash credit of Rs.2,80,00,000/_ on 04.02.2020. To secure due repayment of loan, the defendants executed demand promissory note, deed of hypothecation, deed of guarantee dated 13.02.2020. Defendant no.2 mortgaged the schedule property on L4.02.2020 (more fully described in the schedule to OA). The defendants availed ECTGS term loan of Rs'49,40,000/- on 21.07.2020 and executed various documents. SubsequenUy the Applicant bank revised sanction of WCTL Rs.2,99,43,000/- and FITL fresh limit of Rs.49,70,538/_ was sanctioned on 29.06.2021. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated t6.L0.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and,set exparte on L2.08.2024.

¶25

Sri T. Sai Nath Reddy, nt Bank examined himself as AW.1 and^{e.YI hibited relevant ents, which are o 3^{911 rpl} marked as Ex.A.1 to A.32.

¶26

(oA.180 of 2024)

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

prayed for?

¶31

7 ' Defendants cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.32. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶32

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.4,O9,12,311/_ (Rupees Four crores Nine Lakhs Twerve thousand rhree hundred and Ereven only) i.e.,

¶33

a) A sum of Rs.3,39,g2,BgO/_ under term loan account with future interest date of application till the date of real rt J '1

¶34

(oA.180 of 2024)

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.19,73,556/under ECLGS account with future interest @ 7.50o/o p,a from date of application till the date of realization t

¶36

c) A sum of Rs.49,55,865/under FITL account with future interest @ 7.30o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶37

9' The Appricant bank is entired to proceed against the Hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in schedure '.A &8,, to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.l firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

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

¶40

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

t4. Co
py of the order to the parties concerned.
( tott"tt"o, signed and pronounced by me in the open
#l;"
IP
*
03 0il rpl 7 sdl-
d JRUF cfl, (c. GoPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
r,;m,"
.',>-,-\
.&o

Bank of Maharashtra v. Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd.

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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Primary Agricultural Co. Operative Society

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kasi Reddy Venna

Dudemetla Srinivasulu versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr . M Venkatesh

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Veladi Bhadraiah versus State Bank of India