Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Haripriya Infra Projects

DRT24 Dec 2024OA/276/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs. 56,69,705.73 plus future interest from the respondents, holding the bank established its claim in an ex-parte hearing.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 56,69,705.73 with future interest at 13.60% p.a., and the bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and other propertie

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Haripriya Infra Projects — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF DECEMBER'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.276 ol 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Malakpet branch, Malakpet, Hyderabad Telangana, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Haripriya Infra^projects Rep by its Prop. Mr. Gangarapu Srinivasa Rao, male, Flat no.211, Annapurna blocks, Ameerpet Metro Station, Sanjeev Reddy nagar main road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 038.

¶10

2.
Mr. Gangarapu Srinivasa Rao,
S/o Sri Gangarapu Gangadhara
Naidu, aged 42 years, male,
Occ: business, H.No. 1-26,
S U Puram, Srinivaspuram,
Chittoor, A.P - 517 520. Defendants
Cou nse I for the Pa
\ td'-'
For the Applicant AP 5 Ch ittu ru Srin ivas
l'
For the Defendants
24OEC rte
!F
*)1
_,::tr3p
1. The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for
recovery of a total su.m of Rs.56,69 JOS.73ps (Rupees Fifty Six

¶11

(oA.No.27 6/20241

¶12

Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Seven hundred Five and paise Seventy three only) with future interest @ 13.600lo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle as described in the schedule to OA.

¶13

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 who availed vehicle loan of Rs.50.00 lakhs for purchase of new lcB ExcavatorJCB 215LC machine in the year 2023. The defendants executed letter of sole proprietorship, Demand promissory note, composite

¶14

hypothecation agreement, loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreement. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the account was classified as NPA on 05.09.2023 and issued notice dated 09.09.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶15

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 1.10.2024.

¶16

Sri Ch. Ramesh Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which

¶17

to A.9.
{r'
5. the the Applicant Bank.
1r,k
l;: -': 2 r 0E[ ,tDt
l:.

¶18

(OA.No.276/2024]|

¶19

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?

¶20

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.9. In view of the above, I hold that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim 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.

¶21

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.56,69,7O5.73ps (Rupees Fifty six Lakhs sixty Nine Thousand seven hundred Five and paise

¶22

seventy three onry) with future interest @ 13.600lo p.a from date of applicationtill the date of realization.

¶23

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶24

vehicle as described in schedule to oA towards realization of the

¶25

debt d
;l: ztolcrot
l-,-t:;r 'i1 ,.
fuh,,,**r,t9

¶26

(oA.No.27612024)

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of Dec, 2024)

¶33

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

fiRUFT,COP/ / -
L t 0 {-/d,
--ar^''
A,/Cltlbtrattar
6a- , rmfRAE,li

¶35

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Haripriya Infra Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Haripriya Infra Projects

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 Mrs. Sangam Srilaxmi

State Bank of India versus Sri Mittapalli Sailaja

Ms Csr Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hari Priya Infra Projects

State Bank of India versus Smt. Radhika Sontineni

State Bank of India versus Smt. Bollu Saritha