Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Lakshmi Anjaneya Enterprises

DRT29 Apr 2024OA/185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of outstanding loan dues. The Court held that all six defendants, including a guarantor who claimed coercion regarding property security, are jointly and severally liable to repay the debt along with interest costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 6 ordered to pay Rs.72,73,349/- with interest; entitlement to proceed against schedule properties and persons for balance dues; costs awarded.

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Lakshmi Anjaneya Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDlNG OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2022

¶4

Bank of Baroda

¶5

A.S. Rao Nagar Branch LIG "8" 32, Dr. A. S. Rao Nagar ECIL (P.O), Hyderabad-500062. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.......... Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Anjaneya Enterprises Rep. by its Partners -

¶9

Smt. Yelamakuri Manga

¶10

Sri Yelamakuri Ithihas Reddy

¶11

Smt. Chilumula Sindhu

¶12

Smt. Gottam Manjulatha.

¶13

H. No. 4-91, Pedda Amberpet Village Hayath Nagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District Telangana-510505.

¶14

Smt. Yelamakuri Manga D/o Sri Y. Narasimha Reddy Age : 52 years, Occ: Business Plot No.76, Road No.8 Trim urthy Colony, Mahindra Hills Secunderabad-26.

¶15

Sri Yelamakuri Ithihas Reddy S/o Sri Y. Narasimha Reddy Age : 26 years, Occ: Business Plot No.76, Road No.8 Trim urthy Colony, Mahindra Hills Secu nd e ra ba d^- 26.flwY-*t (_r/ -s

¶16

oa.fi912022

¶17

¶18

Smt. Chilumula Sindha D/o Sri Galreddy Gujjala Age: 32^years, Occ: Business H. No. 4-91, Pedda AmberPet^village Hayath Nagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District Telangana- 510505.

¶19

Smt. Gottam Ma^njulatha D/o Gottam Jalpal Reddy Age: 41 years, Occ: Business Plot No. 148/P, Lane No.21 Ravindra Nagar Colony S.R. Apts. Habsiguda Hyderabad, Tela nga na^- 500007.

¶20

Smt. R. Srllakshmi Wo^{Sri ChandrasekharRaju} Age: 47 years, Occ: Business Plot No. 30 & 40, cyber^Hills- Housing Colony, Road No.11 Kakateeya Hills, MadhaPur ...... Defendants.

¶21

Hyderabad, Telangana-500081.

¶22

Counsel for the Applicant :^{lvl/s. Vamaraju Sri Krishnudu.} Counsel for Defendants :^{lvl/s. V.V.N.K. Sarath Saran.}

¶23

::^qLLEB ::

¶24

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recoveryof a} total sum ot Rs.72,73,3491- from the^{defendantsjointly and} severally with future interest @11.90o/o^{p.a. with monthlyrests} from 08.03.2022 till the date of realisation^{along withcosts and} sale of OA schedule^properties.

¶25

The averments of applicant bank as^{per the OA, briefly,are that} 1't defendant is a^partnership firm^{and defendants2 and 5 are} eN"n

¶26

oA.lasl2022

¶27

¶28

its partners. Defendants No.2 & 5 have approached the applicant bank and availed term loan of Rs.92,76,000/- vide sanction letter dated 21.07.2018 with an interest @9.90o/o on daily balances and with monthly rests subject to RBI guidelines. 6ih Defendant is the mortg a gor/g ua ra ntor to the loan availed by 1't defendant. They executed all necessary loan documents in favour of the applicant bank. The term loan facility is secured by way of mortgage and hypothecation of OA schedule assets. The 6th defendant deposited title deeds of her property and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 08.01.2019. The defendants committed default in repayment after making payments For some time. Accordingly, the loan account became NPA by 30.06.2021. The outstanding dues recoverable from the defendants work out to Rs.72,73,349/- as on 07.03.2022. Defendants 1 to 5 being principal borrowers/ guarantors and 6th defendant being mortgagor/guarantor are jointly and severally liable to discharge the outstanding liability along with interest @11.90o/o pa. (9.90o/o plus 2olo penal interest) with monthly rests. Since defendants failed to discharge the liability, the present OA is filed.

¶29

Defendants 1 to 5 remained exparte. 6th defendant who filed written statement pleaded for dismissal of the OA claim against her stating that she is neither concerned with the Schedule-B OA^property nor with the loan availed by other defendants. It is her contention that registration of said property and subsequent creation of mortgage were solely at the instance of one Y. Narslmha Reddy, Assistant Commissioner of Police who was introduced to her husband by one D. Sidda Reddy, then Sub Inspector, Golconda P.S. Sincp- 6th defendant is not lN"*

¶30

oa.7asl2022

¶31

¶32

claiming any rights over^{the property, shepleaded to dismiss} the OA claim against^her.

¶33

The Applicant Bank^examined B. Vijaya Amruth Raj,^Chief Manager, as AW-1 and^marked 18 documents through^heras Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.18.

¶34

Contestlng^{Defendant reported no evidence.}

¶35

Both the counsel^{requested to passorders on merit. Perused} the material^{placed on record.}

¶36

The point that arises^{for considerationis:-}

¶37

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the OA claim against^the Defendants and against the^OA scheduled assets?

¶38

According to the appllcant^{bank defendants1 to 5 availed term} loan in the^year 2018^{and failed to repaythe same as per the} agreed terms. The^{6th defendant stoodas a guarantorto the} and offered^{the OA schedule-Bpropertyas a securityto the loan} availed by 1't defendant^{partnershipfirm. Per contra,it is the} contention of the 6th defendant^{that the sale deed of OA} schedule-B^property in^{her name and subsequent creation of} mortgage in favour of the^{appllcant bank wereall at the behest} of one Y. Narasimha^{Reddy, Assistantcommissioner of Police,} who happened to be the^{friend of her husband.Therefore,sheis} not concerned with the^{property nor lays any claim overthe} same. Be that as it may, it^{is not under dispute that 6th} defendant is a^{guarantor and offered the property standing in} her name as a security for the^{loan availedby f i defendant.It} CY*'^

¶39

oa.7a5l2022

¶40

¶41

is a clear case that 6th defendant executed the loan documents on her volition. She also executed Ex.A.12 registered lvlemorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds towards creation of mortgage of OA schedule-B property. Such is the situation, 6th defendant cannot disassociate herself for the purpose of absolving from the OA claim. Incidentally, the other defendants 1to 5 remained exparte. Under these circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.18 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the defendants 1 to 6 jointly and severally. Hence, I hold that the Defendants 1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶42

In the result, the present Original Application No.185/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶43

i) The Defendants 1to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.72,73,349l- with future interest @9.90%^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶44

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation/mortgage of properties described in the schedules annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to recover its dues;

¶45

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the fu-.xw

¶46

O/^''tY""

¶47

oA.L85l2022

¶48

¶49

defendants 1 to 6^{for realization of its}

¶50

balance dues;^and

¶51

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs'}

¶52

The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of^{receipt of this Order'}

¶53

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶54

|2.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in^{Web Portal.}

¶55

(Dictated to the steno,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open court on this the} 29'h day of April,²⁰²⁴⁾

¶56

PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Lakshmi Anjaneya Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Lakshmi Anjaneya Enterprises

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

Similar cases

Anis Anvarbhai Ghanchivahora versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Mansi Manilala Rangani

Bank of Baroda versus Krishna Oil Industries

Deepak Prakashbhai Ramchandani Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Aishwarya Food Company

Canara Bank versus M/S Riddhi Jewellers