Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nieva Enterprises

DRT19 Dec 2024OA/298/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the originating application filed by Canara Bank against M/s. Nieva Enterprises and Ms. Meghana Vemula for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 26,77,091.48 along with interest and realization of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 26,77,091.48 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Nieva Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE I9TH DAY OF DECEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.298 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Basheerbagh branch, D. No. 3-6-6914/1A, Avanthi Nagar, Opp Skylark Apartments, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 029. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Nieva Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietor Ms. Meghana Vemula, O/o flat no.602, South block, Express Towers, Whitefields, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084.

¶10

Ms. Meghana Vemula, d/o Sri Vemula Vinay Gopal, aged 28^years, occ: business, female, flat no.602, south block, Express towers, Whitefields, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 84.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the
For the Sri K. Bhaskar Reddy
For the AppliDe rg- Exparte
nts d$
I OEC zmt
I ..J
+.t
1. The App present OA against Defendants For
recovery sum of Rs.26,77,O91.48ps (Rupees Twenty

¶13

(oA.No.298/2022)

¶14

Six Lakhs Seventy Seven thousand and ninety one and paise forty eight only) i.e.,

¶15

a) A sum of Rs.5,57,431.55ps in respect of loan A/c. No.0878261555605 with current and future interest @ 9.45olo p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶16

b) A sum of Rs.16,64,351.54ps in respect of loan A/c. No.0878768000076 with current and future interest @ 10.30o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶17

c) A sum of Rs.39,256.39ps in respect of loan A/c. No.08787530000020 with current and future interest @ 7.30olo p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶18

d) A sum of Rs.4,16,052/- in respect of loan A/c. No.087875S000017 with current and future interest @ 7,650/o p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶19

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor / defendant no.2 availed loan of Rs.24.00 lakhs under Sta heme, Rs.5.00 lakhs towards OCC/ ODBD loan of book debts. The defendants also availed

¶21

rBs.19.O0 lakns^^towar$$|erm loan and working capital demand loan 1 s 0Et zut

¶22

of rs.1,75,000/- on 04.2020. The defendnats also availed working

¶23

(oA. No.298/2022)

¶24

capital term loan of R. s.3,92,000/-. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 07,0t.2022 and issued legal notice dated 12.09.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 06.I1.2024.

¶26

Ms. M. Kiranmai, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.21.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

6' 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?

¶29

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.21. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank d(

¶30

IS ;".ffi;,";? im made in the OA with future interest

¶31

(oA.No.298/2022)

¶32

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶33

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.26,77,O91.48ps (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Seventy Seven thousand and ninety one and paise forty eight only) i.e.,

¶34

a) A sum of Rs.5,57,431.55ps in respect oF loan A/c. No.0878261555605 with current and future interest @ 9.45olo p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.16,64,351.54ps in respect of loan A/c. No.0878768000076 with current and future interest @ 10.30o/o p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶36

c) A sum of Rs.39,256.39ps in respect of loan Alc. No.08787530000020 with current and future interest @ 7.30o/o p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶37

d) A sum of Rs.4,16,052/- in respect of loan A/c. No.0878755000017 with current and future interest @ 7.650/o p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶38

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated towards realization of the

¶39

¶40

(oA.No.298/2022)

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, srgned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19ih day of Dec, 2024)

¶47

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

d\wffi ".11',1;,13?lil'"'o'

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nieva Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nieva 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

Bank of Baroda versus Sri. Boddam Praveen Yadav

Mr S Prathap versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

City Union Bank Limited versus Avanthi Agro Agencies

Govardhan Chawan versus Uco Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S. Amrutha Feeds Mixing Plant

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sangam Srilaxmi