Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Swastik Enterprises

DRT19 Aug 2024OA/286/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank’s application for recovery of loans and interest totaling Rs. 2.46 crore against a partnership firm and its partners, holding them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,46,99,372.13 less Rs. 1,52,20,000 along with interest at 9.50% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against OA assets and defendants' properties.

Canara Bank versus M/S Swastik Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICAT]ON NO. 286 OF 2022

¶4

Canara Bank SME Kukatpally Bra nch Plot No.74 Prashanthi Nagar Ku katpa lly Hydera ba d^- 5000 72 Rep. by its Senior lvlanager.

¶5

... .Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lY/s. Swastik Enterprises Rep by its Partner Sri Suresh Pa nchariya H. No. 8-3-222/7/C Madhura Nagar Yousufguda Main Road Hydera bad-500045.

¶8

Sri Suresh Pa nchariya S/o Panchariya Kamal Kishore Aged about 41 years Occ: Business, H. No. 8-3-678/ 42lE/6, 7, 8/A, Flat No.413 My Home Apartments Navodaya Colony Yellarddyguda, Khairatabad Srinagar Colony H yd era ba d - 5000 73

¶9

Also at:

¶10

H. No.1509, B Block Opp: RTO, Kukatpally Housing Board Colony Hyderabad-500085. )tt'l^{-^*} i"-nJt^-

¶11

oa.2a6l2022

¶12

¶13

Smt. M uⁿ ugala^Padmavathi@ M. Padma, W/o f4unugala^KrishnaReddy Aged about 46^{years, Occ: Business} 23-162, Mad^h uranaga^r Shamshabad, Hyderabad-501218

¶14

Also at: H. No. 8-3-678/ 42/E16, 7, 8/A, Flat^No.413 My Home Apartments Navodaya Colony Yellarddyguda, Khairatabad Srinagar Colony Hyderabad-500073.

¶15

...Defendants.

¶16

: Mr. A.V.S.S. Prasad. Counsel for Applicant Defendants l and 2 : Exparte. Counsel for 3'd defendantⁱ Ivlr. Mahesh Patel.

¶17

:: ORDER ::

¶18

The Applicant Bank^filed the^{presentOA for recoveryof a sum} of Rs.1,86,05,502.33ps^{towards OD/OCCAccount withinterest} @190/o at^{monthly rests, Rs.10,63,760/-towards covid Term} Loan with interest @11.95o/o at^{monthlyrests,} Rs.33,41,397.48ps towards^{GECL account with interest} @9.50o/o at^{monthly rests and Rs.16,88,712.32pstowards} Covid Loan with interest @9.650/o at^{monthly rests(totalling to} Rs.2,46,99,372.!3ps) from the^{defendants1to 3 jointly and} severally from 01.04.2022 till^{the date of realisationalong with} costs and sale of OA^{schedule assets.}

¶19

The averments of applicant bank^{as per the OA, briefly, are that} 1"t defendant is a^partnership firm^{and defendants2 and 3 are} its partners. Initially, defendants^{availed OCC/ODBD limits of} Rs.1.50 crores on 03.05.2019.^{This loanis securedby way of} $ll--".x-t*"" '

oa.2a6l2022

hypothecation of stocks/book debts, equitable mortgage of OA B-schedule property belonging to 3'd defendant and personal guarantees of defendants 2 and 3. Defendants executed respective loan documents. Defendants also availed Covid.19 related loans subsequently. However, defendants committed default and became highly irregular in repayment. Accordingly, the loan account has become NPA on 30.03.2021 and applicant issued demand notice dated 27.04.2027 under SARFAESI Act. As they managed to get the notice returned, applicant bank published the same in two newspaperc on 27.05.202t. Applicants failed to clear the outstanding dues, hence this OA.

¶24

Despite notice through paper publication, there is no representation on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. Hence they were set exparte on 19.06.2023.

¶25

Though 3'd defendant entered appearance through her counsel, she did not choose to file written statement. Hence her right of filing written statement forfeited vide docket order dated 05.o7.2023.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined B. Narasimha, Manager as AW-1 and marked 22 documents through him as Ex. A.1to Ex. A.22. It is submitted that during pendency of OA, applicant sold the OA schedule-B property for RS,1,52,2O,OOO/under SARFAESI Act. However, sale proceedings are under challenge before this Tribunal in SAs. 329/2022 and 1612023 i - and^pending adjudication.^{. \\r\ . '} ' '1111!-

¶27

oA.2A612022

¶28

¶29

The 3'd defendant's right of^{adducing evidencehas been} forfeited for non-representation^{vide docket orderdated} 26.07.2024.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the^{applicant.The 3'd defendant's} right of advancing arguments^{forfeited vide docketorder dated} 06.08.2024.^{Perused the materialplaced on record.}

¶31

The^point that arises^{for considerationis:-}

¶32

Whether the Applicant Bank^{is entitled} for the OA claim against^the Defendants 1to 3 and against^OA schedule assets?

¶33

According to the applicant bank,^{defendantsfailed to repaythe} loan as^per the agreed terms.^{Defendants failed to pursue the} case. Therefore, the clalm^{of the applicant bank is amply proved} vide Exs. A.1 to A.22 and the^{recitalstherein ltis further} submitted that the sale^proceeds of^{mortgaged property are not} taken lnto account consideration^{for the present, but thesame} will be taken care of before the^{Recovery Officer. Undersuch} circumstances, the Evidence^Affidavit of^{AW.1 coupled with the} recitals in the documents viz.,^{Exs. A.1 to A.22 marked on} behalf of the Applicant Bank,^{remains unchallenged and} unrebutted. Hence, I hold that^{Defendants 1 to 3 are jointlyand} severally liable to^pay the OA^{claim to the Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶34

In the result, the^present Original Application No.286/2022^is allowed as under:^- Vbi,v (-,/ -\q""

¶35

oa.2a612022

¶36

i) The Defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs. Rs.2,46,99,372.13ps (less Rs,1,52,20,OOO/- subject to outcome of securitisation proceedings) along with interest @9.50o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶37

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets mentioned in Schedule-A annexed to the OA and the appllcant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶38

iii) the sale of OA schedule-B property having been challenged under the Securitisation Act, applicant bank is entitled to take appropriate action against the same subr?ct to outcome of securitisation proceedings pending against the mortgaged properties for realization of its dues;

¶39

iv) the applicant banks also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realisation of its dues; and

¶40

v) the applicant bank ls entitled for the costs.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Orderzwy2a.,a.$4 u/ -\q\t-

¶42

oA.28512022

¶43

¶44

t2. Issue Recovery. Certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of this order to^{the partiesconcernedand} upload on Web Portal.

¶46

(iictatett to the steno, signetl and pronouncetl by ne in the open^court on^{this the} l/t'

¶47

day of August , 2024).

¶48

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/S Swastik Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Swastik 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

Punjab National Bank (E-Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Sh. Noel Karmakar

Punjab National Bank versus Naresh Arora

Indian Bank versus M/S Pamper Polymer and Beverages

Mislu Tp versus State Bank of India

Saheeda K versus State Bank of India

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Mr.Yarram Rajashekar Reddy