Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Smt. Banothu Sunitha

DRT1 Jul 2024OA/193/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.39,21,073/- plus interest. The court held the defendants liable based on unchallenged documentary evidence since the defendants failed to cross-examine the bank's witness or produce contrary proof.

What did the court decide?

Ordered payment of Rs.39,21,073/- with interest; entitled to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties and personal assets; issued recovery certificate.

Central Bank of India versus Smt. Banothu Sunitha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 1sr DAY OF JULY,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.193 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Central Bank of India, Narsampet branch, Warangal district, Telangana - 506 132 Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SmtBanothuSunitha, w/o Sri Laxman, aged about 37 years, occ: ag ricu ltu re, R/o 9-29, AkulaThanda, Itikalpalle, Narasampet Warangal - 506 132.

¶10

Sri BanothuLaxman, s/o Blichaya, aged about 36 years, occ: business, R/o 9-29, AkulaThanda, Itikalpal le, Narasampet Warangal - 506 132.

¶11

Sri GujjulaMadhava Reddy, s/o Sri gujjulaMalla Reddy, aged about 57 years, occ: business, R/o 2-29, Maheswaram, Narsampetmandal, Warangal - 506 331. Defenda nts

¶12

K.V. Nageswara Rao ::ff:j;,:::;:, \ K. Kranthi Kumar For the Defendariist?I,li o 1 JUr. A[i j t..-i\ , i^'-'r ':^' /'<sup>rFr ^j' ' .,S^'-A"ri \i'i'^'i',r rRuJgtfrIlr

¶13

(oA.No.193/2022)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,21,073l- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Twenty One thousand and Seventy Three only) with interest @ 12.30o/o with monthly rests (inclusive of 2o/o penal interest) from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties as described in the schedules^"A & B" to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 and 2 are borrowers and defendant no.3 as guarantor availed term loan of Rs.28.00 lakhs for development of Horticulture Poly house vide sanction letter dated 08.06.2018. The defendants 1 & 2 hypothecated the^plantation and development in poly house as mentioned in the schedule A to OA. The defendants 1 & 2 executed demand promissory note dated 08.06.2018 and defendant no.3 executed^guarantee consent letter dated 01.04.2018. The defendant no.1 mortgaged the schedule mentioned "B" properties and deposited the original title deeds dated 02.06.2018.

¶17

It is submitted t bank that the Defendants have ava iled the sai repayment schedule, srSuch the dccount w6s as NPA and r*, 01."': ',i1, rir --{ '.: i. .i. .':1 ,'.:^,: ^ ,.i (";}i'r'otn:$;r/

¶18

(oA. No.193/2022)

¶19

issued legal notice dated 02.03.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.39,21,0731- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Twenty One thousand and Seventy Three only) with interest @ 12.30o/o with monthly rests (inclusive of 2o/o penal interest) from date of application till realization. Hence the oA.

¶20

The Defendants filed written statements and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents with the Applicant bank. The defendants denied the creation of mortgage over application schedule properties by deposit of title deeds. The defendants further submitted that the Applicant bank charged high rate of interest which is against to the RBI^guidelines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶21

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri MuvvaSridhar, Senior Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 22 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.22. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their c4' ..': ', examine the AW.1 to/tgn}.rovert his Chipf Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournme tht :J6ldants raiteO to file evidence

¶22

(oA.No.193/2022)

¶23

Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 02.05.2024.

¶24

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶27

ii) To what relief ?

¶28

Point No.i)r

¶29

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as^per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it^is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the^Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts^paid by^the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account^{filed by} Applicant Bank. The defendants have not^placed any^material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they^paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶30

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to^give evidence^to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount^mentionedin the OA and no sup_pOrting .documents^filed for^{establishingthat they} have not creaty'fi4Ie mo(Lgage. Under such^{circumstances,the} evidence "t o{ij cd}fle(ulwprr recitals^Ex.A.1 to^{A.22 stood} \ii..-o o . -:i! !' ,\

¶31

(oA. No.193/2022)

¶32

unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendant is liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶33

Point No.ii)

¶34

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶35

B. The DeFendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.39,21,O73/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Twenty One thousand and Seventy Three only) with interest @ 12.30o/o (inclusive of 27o penal interest) from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶36

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is

¶39

(OA.No.193/2022)

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by meⁱⁿ the^open court on this the 1't day of )uly'2024)

¶44

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

6*<br>'^
#
€t
{. o1'r,,lmt I
Q*#

¶46

RUE COPY ( A"-.- t) , J: i ;i1!!iif,'o on I^+1" f^u u

Central Bank of India v. Smt. Banothu Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Smt. Banothu Sunitha

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

State Bank of India versus Manikanta Plastic

State Bank of India versus Sri Doma Krishna

Navneet Agarwal versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Smt. Bharatha

Canara Bank versus Siri Bassi Mangal Singh

Canara Bank versus Smt. Mali Surekha