Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S. Cold Care Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

DRT14 Oct 2024OA/292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal Allowed the repayment order filed by Central Bank of India against M/s. Cold Care Technologies and six other parties for a total sum of Rs.11.68 crores along with interest and costs, holding that the claim was established.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.11,68,91,630.32 with future interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against secured assets; Recovery certificate issued.

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Cold Care Technologies… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.292 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Central Bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch, Bank street, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 001. Represented by its Constituted attorney

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Cold Care Technologies Pvt Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri PochampallySreenivas Rao, S/o PochampallySudhakar Rao, Plot no.C2A, APIIC Industriala Park, Sy.No.206, (Behind Bharat petroleum Filling Station), Gurrampalem, Visakhapatnam district, AP.

¶10

Also at

¶11

Plot no.13, HIG colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶12

Sri PochampallySrinivasa Rao, S/o Pocham pallySudhakar Rao, Plot no.13, HIG Hill colony, Near Ganesh Temple, Vanasthalipuram, Hayatnagar, R.R. district, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶13

Sri P. Upender Rao, s/o Sri P. Sudhakar Rao, aged about 55 years, occ: business, Plot no.13, HIG Hill colony, Near Ganesh Temple, Vanasthalipuram, Hayatnagar, R.R. district, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶14

ft<br>(, rtt *-d. 14o0izmt t
^:J
S,*tE#

¶15

(OA.No.292 of 2024)

¶16

Sri PochampallyJanardhan Rao, s/o PochampallySudhakar Rao, Plot no.13, HIG Hill colony, Near Ganesh Temple, Vanasthalipuram, Hayatnagar, R.R. district, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶17

Sri Ch. LaxmiNarasimha, s/o Sri Ch.Chldambar Rao, aged about 52 years, occ: business, H.No.12-22, road no.1, plot no.99, SriramaKrishnapuram, Kothapet, Hyderabad.

¶18

M/s. Cold Care Agritech, A registered Partnership firm, Represented by its Managing partner, Office situated at B-345,

¶19

2nd floor, Vanastha li puram,

¶20

R.R. District, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶21

M/s. Cold Care Warehousing & Logistics, (proforma party) Partnership Firm, represented by its Partner Sri P. Upender Rao, 4-10, 108, plot no.3, Survey No.96/l/a, block No.35,

¶22

Autonagar, APIIC, Industrial

¶23

Area, Hayathnagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

¶24

Defendants

¶25

Counsel for the Parties:

¶26

For the Applicant

¶27

For the Defendants

¶28

Sri K.V. Nageswara Rao

¶29

Expa rte

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The Applica t OA against Defendants No.1 to 6
for recov Er ato sum of 1 1,68,91,63O.32ps (Rupees
* ttgCI ,mt .r
o.r
':.{'
rq /.
"l^
:tal}o4xoe$ cs

¶32

(OA.No.292 of 2024)

¶33

Eleven Crores Sixty Eight Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty and paise Thirty two only) i.e.,

¶34

a) A sum of Rs.9,33,56,892.65ps under Term loan with further interest @ 13.5olo p.a with monthly rests and 2olo overdue interest from date of application till the date of realization;

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.99,25,104/- under Cash credit account with further interest @ 13.5olo p.a with monthly rests and 2yo overdue interest from date of application till the date of realization;

¶36

c) A sum of Rs.1,16,86,716.29ps under Working Capital Term loan with further interest @ 13.5olo p.a with monthly rests and 2olo overdue interest from date of application till the date of rea lization ;

¶37

d) A sum of Rs.19,22,917.38ps under FITL account with further interest @ 13.5olo p.a with monthly rests and 2olo overdue interest from date of application till the date of realization; and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgage properties as described in the schedules '.A to D,, to OA.

¶38

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states
that defendant No.1 tyftd$qt&tr&Ncompany and defendants
avaited term

No.2 to 4 are the ,tli6. "&rr"h\company
loan of Rs.B.90 crdiet ant S$Ctrffi[ or g{io.as crores rotating a
:1 E)
:-4 ^ a.r-
,,'1t-- r;1 .
^\Y',
Wffi#

¶39

(OA.No.292 of 2024)

¶40

sum of Rs.9.75 crores vide sanction letter dated 20.01.2019. The defendants executed Term loan agreement dated 16.02.2018 and extended the collateral security covered under item no.I and II of schedule A movable assets and also immovable properties covered under Schedule C and D belonging to defendants no.6 and defendants No. 2 to 5. Defendant no.6 stood as guarantor for loan facilities extended by Applicant bank to defendant no.1. Defendant No.1 executed demand promissory note for cash credit limit of Rs.85 lakhs on 16.02.2018. Defendant no.2,3,4,5 & 6 executed Stamped form of guarantee for Advances and credits generally dated 16.02.2018 for the loan liability of Rs.9,70,00,000/-. Defendants 2,3,4,5 and 6 deposited the tiile deeds of schedule C and D properties on 30.01.2018. 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 and issued demand notice. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶41

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 03.09.2024.

¶42

Mr. Syed Kamal Mohiuddin, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined
himself as AW.1 and exhibited which are
+
marked as Ex.A.1 to A.52. u

¶43

Heard the Ld. counset ror the ojif"., tt[!I^m 3

¶44

(OA.No.292 of 2024)

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

prayed for?

¶48

7' Defendants ca'ed 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.52. In view of the above, I hold that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entired to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶49

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants No.1 to 6 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.11,68,91,630.32ps (Rupees Eleven Crores Sixty Eight Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty and paise Thirty two only) i.e.,

¶50

a) A sum of Rs.9,33,56,892.65ps under Term loan with further interest @ 13.5% p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶51

b) A sum of Rs.99 credit account with further intere{.gi:3Uo . of application till

¶52

the date of r8aliiation: * ii ' 1[ocl^2$2l Fir IA ^s W*,*9

¶53

(OA.No.292 of 2024)

¶54

c) A sum of Rs.1,16,86,716.29ps under Working Capital Term loan with further interest @ 13.5olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶55

d) A sum of Rs.19,22,917.38ps under FITL account with further interest @ 13.5olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶56

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as described in schedules "A to

¶57

D" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶58

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶59

and properties of defendant No.2 to 5 and properties of defendants no.1 and 6 firms towards realization of the debt due.

¶60

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

¶61

t2. The Appricant shalr fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶62

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶63

Commun of the order to the parties concerned.

¶64

ffii1'*fr:rzf , corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
1 q 0cr zl[t i: {R!-groJJ [, , (c.oor,.riflli
i., Y.\ ' u l- ,-":fifREstDtNG oFFtcER
--<v- t-
l6rt'Raglrtr t
6 OFIJ, HYOERABAD.
W-n9

Central Bank of India v. M/S. Cold Care Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S. Cold Care Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

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 Maruthi Super Stores

State Bank of India versus Mr. Datla Srinivas Raju

State Bank of India versus Mr. Degala Prabhudas

Sri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Smt. Donthi Narmada

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Chedupally Ailaiah