Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Medfin Pharma Services Pvt. Ptd

DRT6 Sept 2024OA/230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA.No.230 of 2024, the Tribunal allowed the creditor Bank of Maharashtra's recovery application against the pharmaceutical firm and its guarantors. The court held the claim established and directed joint and several liability for the principal, future interest, and costs, with authority to enforce security.

What did the court decide?

Defendants must pay Rs.2,24,41,419.95 with 18% future interest; Bank to proceed against mortgaged properties and personal assets of Defendants 2 and 3 for realization.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Medfin Pharma Services Pvt. Ptd — Money Laundering | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE GTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.23O of 2OZ4

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra, Sultan bazar branch, Hyderabad, Telangana State Represented by its autho rized officer Sri Pravin Kumar Mahto, Chief manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Medfin pharma Services pvt Ltd, (Mr. MeeripellyKamalakar - Director And Mrs. MeeripellyUmadevi ),

¶9

H. No.9- 10-48,^pinnavari street, Warangal, Telangana - 506 002.

¶10

Mr. MeeripellyKamalakar, S/o M. Narasaiah, aged 54 years, Occ: business, male, H,No.9-10-48, pinnavari street, Warangal, Telangana - 506 002.

¶11

Mrs. MeeripellyUmadevi, w / o Mr. MeeripellyKamalakar,

¶12

9g-ed^{50 years, occ: business, female,} H.No.9- 10-48, pinnavari street, Warangal, Telangana - 506 002. Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the parties:

¶14

For the Applicant
an Kiran Raj
For the Defendants

¶15

(OA.No.230 of 2024)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,24,4L,419.9Sps (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Forty one thousand Four Hundred Nineteen and paise Ninety five only) (Rs.L,72,71,105.31ps + Rs.7,48,427.64ps + Rs.44,2l,BB7/-) with future interest @ 1g% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm represented by defendant no.2 as its proprietor and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the credit facilities availed. Defendants 1 and 2 availed the New cash credit facility for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- through sanction retter dated 29.0L.2020. The defendants executed necessary loan documents and subsequently the defendants availed term loan of Rs.15,75,000/_ and created equitable mortgage and hypothecation of schedule mentioned properties on 25.06.2020. The cash credit facility was en ha nced from Rs. 1, 5Q0-01@5!o Rs. 2, 00, 00, 0OO/- on 05. t2.2020. After avairins ,rur6;#'&SR\K"ndants raired ro compry the terms of .e;zu\ bank was constrained to classify the ed recall notice dated

¶19

(oA.No.230 of 2024)

¶20

30.06.2023. Inspiteof several requests and demands, the

¶21

defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶22

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 23.07.2024.

¶23

Sri N. Pravin Kumar 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.40.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Defendants called absent and set 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.40. 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.

¶28

/f-"B -\
; oEsEP,rru ;
vfo***#

¶29

(OA.No.230 of 2024)

¶30

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

¶31

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,24,41,419.95ps (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Forty one thousand Four Hundred Nineteen and paise Ninety five only) (Rs.|,72,71,105.31ps + Rs.7,48,427.64ps + Rs.44,2I,BB7l-) with future interest @ 18o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶32

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

¶33

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶36

Issue Recovery certifi
.;1 4,
fl
. l*,
€
.tr *
0 E SEP 2U{

¶37

(OA.No.230 of 2024)

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed _by_her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of Sept, 2d24)

¶40

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

tBsEP

¶42

$"Ew^
JlTi.#J;il?""

Bank of Maharashtra v. Medfin Pharma Services Pvt. Ptd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Medfin Pharma Services Pvt. Ptd

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 Sri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Narasimha Poultry

Canara Bank versus Sri. Jadav Gangadhar Rao

State Bank of India versus Saanvi Ssi

Ms Amrit Enterprises versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Shreyans Enterprises