Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Zenith Import and Export

DRT19 Sept 2024OA/291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of Rs. 26.88 crores and costs against the defendants, holding that the repeated demands were made and the loan became due upon NPA classification and demand notice.

What did the court decide?

Declaratory order that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 26.88 crore with interest at 16.15% p.a. from date of realization, costs of the application, and authorization to issue re

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Zenith Import and Export — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.291 ol2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

KarurVysya Bank Ltd, Branch at 5-8-356 to 362, 2nd floor, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Zenith Import and Export, Represented by its Managing partner Jain Hitesh Ramesh Kumar

¶8

@ Hitesh Ramesh Jain, male, Major, occ: business,

¶9

Sri Jain Hitesh Ramesh Kumar, @Hitesh Ramesh lain, S/o Ramesh Kumar Ottarmal Jain, Managing Partner of M/s. Zenith Import And Export, male, major, Occ: business,

¶10

Sri Ramesh Kumar Ottarmal lain, s/o Late Sri Ottarmal Jain,

¶11

partner of M/s. Zenith Import and Export, male, major, occ: business,

¶12

All are at:

¶13

Survey No.223, Rampally village, Keesaramandal, Ranga Reddy dist- 501 301.

¶14

(OA.no.291 of 2023)

¶15

Also at

¶16

Plot no.43, Survey no.156/1, Jawahar Rail colony, Sikh Village, Hyderabad - 500 OO9.

¶17

Also at:

¶18

D.No.23-14, Assessment No.2g15, RS No.106/2/4, Kondapalti viilage And Panchayat, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna district.

¶19

Also at:

¶20

D.No. 1-8-50/3/10 &n 11/8, Plot no.43, Sai Vatika, pG road, Street no.11, Sindhi colony, Secunderabad - 500 010.

¶21

Also at:

¶22

H.No.2-3-450, flat no.303, B-block, Sri Sai Residency, Gayadeenbagh, MG road, Nallagutta, Secunderabad - 10. Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the^parties:

¶24

For the Applicant La n ka J a g a n n a d h a m For the Defendants f-t{ffi *;r^{g' t\1""} .E^legrryfn- i..4Yia .j 1. The Applicant OA against Defendants for recovery of a 26,88$2,LL5.69ps (Rupees Twenty Six Crores Eighty Eight Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand One hundred Fifteen and paise Sixty Nine only) with interest @ 16.15% p.a from date of application till the date of realization and

¶25

(OA.no.291 of 2023)

¶26

in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA,

¶27

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm, represented by its managing partner 2nd defendant availed financial facility of Rs.11,25,00,000/- out of which cash credit is Rs.10.00 Crores and CEL facility of Rs.1.25 Crores on 16.07.2015. On 1g.11.2015, the defendant no.1 executed all necessary documents. Defendants No.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the loan taken by defendant no.1 and executed agreement of guarantee. Defendant no.1 deposited the application schedule property Regd Original Sale deed bearing No.8609/2015 dated 07.10.2015 and created charge over the property and deposited tifle deeds vide doc.No.79612016 dated 23.01.20t6, SRO, Nallapadu. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 30.03.2018 and issued demand notice dated 05.05.2018 and possession notice dated 19. ite of several requests and demands, the defenda outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶28

J. ,! 1 I SEp 2m{ .d 3. Defendants No.1 to bsent an rte on 13.03.2024. +; &"..

¶29

(OA.no.291 of 2023)

¶30

Sri P.N.S.V. ChalapathiRao, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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?

¶33

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 rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.16, In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs,

¶34

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of -. Rs.26,gg.g2,115.69ps (Rupees Twenty Six Crores Eighty Two Thousand

¶35

//'4--^--

¶36

One hundred Fifteefuand p only) with interest

¶37

date of realization;

¶38

@ 16,15olo p.a from {.* qrgmparil[, titfi ;.t-h,,r^SV tt\gru(, ...i; \:"'t'

¶39

(OA.no.291 of 2023)

¶40

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶42

and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realizaUon of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly,

¶46

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P.A., kanscribed by-her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of Sept, 2024)

¶48

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFTCER

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Zenith Import and Export

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Zenith Import and Export

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

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

M S Zain Minerals Rep by Its Managing Partner Azghar Ahmed versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gunter Naresh

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs. Munigala Indira

T Subba Reddy versus State Bank of India

Sri Dyavanapally Srinivas versus Union Bank of India