Allowed

Bank of India v. Dindigala Purushotham

DRT13 Dec 2024OA/224/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

O.A. No. 224 of 2024 was filed by Bank of India against its borrowers and guarantor for recovery of a housing loan along with mortgage. The court observed that the bank established its claim through witness examination and document proof despite the defendants' absence, thereby allowing the Order Application with costs and recovery certificate. Defendants were held jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay; Recovery certificate issued; Entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property affirmed.

Bank of India versus Dindigala Purushotham — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.224 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bank of India, Dilsukhnagar branch, 16- 17-740/7, Near Chandana Brothers, Main road, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - SO0 060. Represented by its Constitute Attorney

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Dindigalapurushotham, s/o Narsaiah, male, aged 52 years,

¶9

occ: business,

¶10

R/o H.No. 1-7 -659/ A/7 / L/8, Ramnagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶11

And also at

¶12

D.No.5-30/3 on plot no.20m, Sy. No.430, Gandamvarigudem, Nalgonda town, Nalgonda District - 508 004.

¶13

fd,- "#
tP 41
* *
1 3 oEC zur
q,

¶14

2, SmtsarithaGourisetty, w/o G. Mahesh, female, aged 44 years, occ: business, R/o flat No.104, Mahavir towers, Road no.4, KpHB colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 5OO 072.

¶15

Counsel for the parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri D. Brahma Reddy

Exparte

(oA.No.224/202a)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,Og,79,1O4/- (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakhs Seventy Nine thousand One hundred and four

¶23

only) with interest @ 7.I5o/o p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶24

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 availed housing loan of Rs.g5.00 lakhs on 31.07.2020 and defendant no,2 stood as guarantor.The defendants executed demand promissory note, bearer letter, installment letter, L-513, L-515,1-516, L-5t7 and RBLCR agreement dated 03.0B.2020.Defendant no.2 executed deed of guarantee dated 03.08.2020 and defendant no.1 created security over the property more fully described in the schedule to oA and deposited the sale deed doc'No. L4072/2020 dated 06.08.2020. After avairing the roan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrai e account as NPA on 01.05.2021 and issued de dat $l{t''0"' Inspite of several requests and nds, the defendantr id not clear the 130EC2U| : outstanding. Hence this

¶25

(OA.No.224/202a1

¶26

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 17.10.2024.

¶27

Sri B. Ganesh, Credit officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A,21.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶30

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.21. 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 entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶31

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank ,79,LO41-^{(Rupees One} ufar$ e*il Crore Eight La nd One hundred and s"ffiffiilJ four only) intereltpgEgtmt 0.a+ date of application till i "1 ,-J the date of reali h;'>-,rre$i wd;Ee-;y

¶32

(oA.No.224/2024)

¶33

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶34

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶35

debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶40

14, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.A,, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of Oec,2024)

¶42

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

,d<br>1 3 0E[ 2ut

Bank of India v. Dindigala Purushotham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Dindigala Purushotham

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Om Sree Venkatanameswara Prelam Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Mantena Laboratories Ltd.

Mr Arepula Yadagiri versus Bank of Baroda

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Zahada Mohammed (Died)

Canara Bank versus M/S. Maha Ganapathi Trading

State Bank of India versus M/s. Paramount Solutions