Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Anil Chakravarty Manthena

DRT24 Sept 2024OA/289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a loan against a defaulting borrower. The Tribunal held that the bank had established its claim.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant is liable to pay the total sum of Rs.28,94,141.52ps with interest at 10.75% p.a. from 20.04.2024. The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Sri. Anil Chakravarty Manthena — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.289 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Charminar branch, Branch office at 22-7-294, 1't floor, Nizambagh, DiwanDeodi, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500 002. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Anil ChakravartyManthena, s/o GandhirajuManthena, H.No.flat no.502, 5th floor, Shree Hanuman Indraprastanam, Mythrinagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072.

¶10

Also at

¶11

Office address at Anil Constructions, 7 -2-B- t2/ 1, OppSanathnagar post Office, Industrlal estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad - 500 018. Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant Sri G. Venkat Sri Maitheya
For the Defendant Expa rte
f's - -t*
,.
-e$
?4sEPmr *l
- - :'.
W,r**l-,V

¶14

(OA.No.289 of 2024)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2g,g4,L41.S2ps (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand One hundred forty one and paise Fifty two only) with further interest @ 10.75% p.a from 20.04.2024 till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant avaired car roan of Rs.37.00 rakhs for purchase of Toyota Fortuner sigma 4 at BSVI, Dieser car passenger car with monthly EMIs @ Rs.57,946/- in 84 months. After availing the loan facilities, the defendant faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NPA on 23.06.20)3 and issued notices. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendant did not crear the outstanding, Hence this OA.

¶18

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 03.09.2024,

¶19

Sri Bipin Kumar Maurya, Chief Manaqer of the Applicant Bank which ;." H::,',."^, - ^",,ffro*ments' fl; zrx'pnr^{1</sup> \W**#,'}

¶20

(OA.No.289 of 2024)

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

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

¶23

Defendant 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. 14. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶24

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.28,94tl41.52ps (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand One hundred forty one and paise Fifty two only)

¶25

with further interest @ 10.75olo p.a from 20.04.2024 till the date of realization.

¶26

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as descri bed in srf6I6ltqgfB-hwa rds realization of the debt due. ,{';^--E^n1. i;; I I sEP tnr^.li .: il ., .j*// .ir^./HYUr-'--tr '.t^{11.*,rr"ro"".td} :Stcsry

¶27

(OA.No.289 of²⁰²⁴⁾

¶28

Bank is also^entitled to^{proceedagainstthe} Person

¶29

1. The^ApPlicant realization of the^debtdue.

¶30

of defendant^towards

¶31

and Properties

¶32

The APplicant^{Bankis entitled to the costs of the OA'}

¶33

a cost memo^{within two weeks from the date}

¶34

1. The APP|icant^{shall file} of receipt^{of order.}

¶35

Issue^{Recovery certificate accordingly'}

¶36

Communicate^{a copy of the order to the parties concerned'}

¶37

(Dictated to the P,A., transcribed^{byher, corrected,signedand pronounced by me in the open} iourt on this^{the 24tn dav of Sept, 2024)}

¶38

sdl_ (G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶39

*
,m
.-Q:.'Y
,dfsz
srHrq

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Anil Chakravarty Manthena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Anil Chakravarty Manthena

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 M/S. Mourya Automotives

Sri Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy versus Hdfc Bank

Canara Bank versus New Amma Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nakka Muthyam Transport

Indian Bank versus M/S. B. Nagendra Nail Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Mr. D. Tirupathi Reddy