Allowed

Indusind Bank Limited v. Radhika

DRT17 Dec 2024OA/299/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Indusind Bank Limited. The court held the bank entitled to recover the claimed loan amount, interest, and proceed against mortgaged and other properties of the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,98,44,327.52 with 12% p.a. interest. Applicant can proceed against mortgaged and other properties for realization. Recovery certificate issued.

Indusind Bank Limited versus Radhika — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE LTTH DAY OF DECEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.299 of ZO24

¶4

Between:

¶5

Indusind Bank Limited, Secunderabad branch, Laxmi, 7-8-448, S.P. Road, Beg umpet, Secu nderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager And Authorised Signatory

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mrs. Radhika Gurram, w/o Mr. Gurram^prakash, aged major, occ: business, D. No,11-3- llt/2, Nehru Nagar street, Near Chava Ramalingaiah Children's Hospital, Khammam town Khammam - 507 001.

¶9

Also at

¶10

Mrs. Gurram Radhika, W/o Mr. Gurram Prakash, aged major, occ: business, Plot no.10,11 ,L6,t7, Sy.No.156, Velugumatla Khammam urban, Khammam - 207 001.

¶11

Also at

¶12

Mrs. Gurram Radhika, w/o Mr. Gurram^prakash, aged major, occ: business, flat no,602, Sth floor, Disney hills, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam - 507 001.

¶13

fl; rroicmr :.
W"'

¶14

(oA. No.299/2024)

¶15

Mr. Gurram Prakash, s/o Rama Rao, aged major, occ: business, Plot no.10,1 1,L6,I7, Sy.No.156, Velugumatla Khammam u rba n. Khammam - 207 O0l.

¶16

Also at:

¶17

D.No. 1 1-3-1 1 1/2, Nehru Nagar street, Near Chava Ramalingaiah Children's Hospital, Khammam town Khammam - 507 001.

¶18

Also at:

¶19

flat no.602, 5th floor, Disney hills, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam - 507 001.

¶20

Mrs. VijayalakshmiGurram, w/o Rama Rao, aged major, occ: business, flat no.602, 5th floor, Disney hills, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam - 507 001.

¶21

Also at

¶22

D.No. 11-3-1 11/2, Nehru Nagar street, Near Chava Ramalingaiah Children's Hospital, Khammam town Khammam - 507 001.

¶23

Mr. Rama Rao Gurram, Aged major, occ: business, flat no.602, 5th floor, Disney hills, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam - 507 001.

¶24

Mr. G.R. R. Realties, Represented by its partner D.No. 11-3-11 1/2, Nehru Nagar street, Near Chava Ramalingaiah Children's

¶25

ot02gt^* !r ,@

¶26

(oA. No.299l2024)

¶27

Hospital, Khammam town Khammam - 507 001.

¶28

Also at:

¶29

Mr. G.R.R. Realties, Represented by its partner, Sy.No.73lAA &76/AA, Khanapuram Haveli street, Khammam - 507 OO1. Defendants

¶30

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶31

Sri VenkataRamana Expa rte

¶32

ORDER

¶33

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,99,44,327.52ps (Rupees One crore Ninety Eight Lakhs Forty Four thousand rhree Hundred Twenty Seven and paise Fifty two only) with interest @ t2o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedure .,A to C" to OA.

¶34

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is the mortgagor and defendants 2 to 5 are loan availed by defendant no.1. The defendant '' 'r.;1. '.." -, i:,.'r" no.l,_'availed'el,S!.m of Rs.20O lakhs towards Agri Term loan and defenQffit to 5: mortgaged the schedule mentioned properties of

¶35

(oA.No.299 l2oz4)

¶36

OA to the Applicant Bank. The defendants executed sanction letter, master general terms agreement, term loan agreement, agreement for hypothecation. Letter for continuing guarantee, declaration for mortgage etc. 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 notice dated 06.07.2027. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶37

Defendants No.1 to 5 called absent and set exparte on 11.0g.2024.

¶38

Sri L. Tulasi Rao, Authorised signatory of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.18.

¶39

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶40

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?

¶41

Counsel for defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the,Appli.cant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was ,

¶42

'i i^{i';ti (' ug't, -r^}

¶43

gptfll'ttffi;iS$q6xptbited retevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.18, rn '*

¶44

','^{. 'fl"* or ffi" .o"r&ihhordthat the Appricant Bank has} estabrished ':^;t 'r,n",tr r r arn mi. li ' Il.?ff mt" ,ru*" oA asainst the Defendants and hence the

¶45

(OA. No.299/2024)

¶46

Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶47

B, In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,98,44,327.52ps (Rupees One Crore Ninety Eight Lakhs Forty Four thousand Three Hundred Twenty Seven and paise Fifty two only) with interest @ l2o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶48

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in schedule "A to C" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶49

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶53

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 2O24)

¶55

.6
.rr,

¶56

sdl€.w4 (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

1 7 0EC z0n

¶58

i ,A/

¶59

-os'

¶60

S##@

Indusind Bank Limited v. Radhika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Limited v. Radhika

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Burra Uday Bhaskar

Union Bank of India versus ramakoteswara rao

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kashyap

M/S . Uco Bank versus M/S. Vanitha Jyothi Mahila Sangam

State Bank of India versus Sri Muggu Kumar

Indian Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Enterprises