Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. Venkateswara Borewells

DRT3 Sept 2024OA/313/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of India for recovery of a loan debt of approx. Rs. 56.15 lakhs from M/s. Venkateswara Borewells and Sri Vudhavath Ghansiram, holding the claim established on evidence.

What did the court decide?

Relief: Decree for recovery of Rs.56,15,779.91 with interest; recovery certificate issued; costs ordered; applicant to file cost memo within two weeks.

Bank of India versus M/S. Venkateswara Borewells — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.313 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of India, Dilsukhnagar branch, 76-tL-740/7, Near Chandana Brothers, Main road, Dilshukhnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana state - 60. Represented by its constitute Attorney Sri T. Jagannnadham

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. VenkateswaraBorewells, A proprietary concern, Represented by its Proprietor Sri VudhavathGhansiram, D. No.8-93, PorlagaddaThanda, Vailapally, Narayanpurmandal, YadadriBhuvanagiridist -508 253.

¶10

Sri VudhavathGhansiram,
s/o Late V. somla, aged 42 years,
occ: business, R/o D.No.B-93,
PorlagaddaTha nda,
Vailapally, Narayanpurmandal,
YadadriBhuvanagiridist -508 253. Defendants
Counsel for the
For the Applicant Brahma Reddy
For the Defendants
*a_ii
.-.^ ",
'.$F.,*Yo4S#
siffiYn9

¶11

(OA.No.313 of 2023 )

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.56,15,779.91ps (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and paise Ninety one only) ie.,

¶14

a) A sum of Rs.42,78,026.74ps in loan account no,864370410000028 with interest @ 13.35olo p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶15

b) A sum of Rs.8,04,146.17ps in loan account no.864370410000071with interest @ 9.25olo p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶16

c) A sum of Rs.3,32,924l- in loan account no.86437021000008 with interest @ 9.35olo p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶17

d) A sum of Rs.2,00,683/- in loan account no.864365610000002with interest @ 9.35olo p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest

¶18

from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶19

as descrbed n
;:,":;:" il;;'l:,ffir'[v
,
ii 'o 0 3 sEP zut ...
\isb,#

¶20

(OA.No.313 of 2023)

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor defendant no,2 availed term loan of Rs.66,g5,000/_ for purchase of borewell lorry and machinery vide application dated 31.10.2015. The defendants executed demand promissory note, bearer letter, installment letter, IFD-X hypothecation cum loan agreement dated 30.11.2015, L515, L-516 and IFD-X hypothecation cum loan agreement dated 28.01.2016. The defendants availed WCTL of Rs.7.00 lakhs vide application dated 20.06.2020 and executed various documents. The defendants restructured the term loan account as Rs.4,07,000/- as WSCTL and Rs.1,69,000/- as FITL dated 31.03.202I and executed various documents. 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 and issued notice dated 04.12.202l.lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶22

Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 21.02.2024.

¶23

Sri C. Rama Krishna, Senior Manager plicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibi tS, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.40. i'rf + s^{3 stP ,f!?r} 5. Heard rhe Ld. Counset ror tnA\lftpticini eank. - : S,,^;

¶24

(OA.No.313 of 2023)

¶25

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?

¶26

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 relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.40. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶27

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

¶28

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.56,15,779.91ps (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and paise Ninety one only) ie.,

¶29

a) A sum of Rs.42,78,026.74ps in loan account no.864370410000028 with interest @ 13.35olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶30

b) A sum of loan accou nt 7o p.a from date of n o . I 6 4 3 7 o 4 Lo o o o o d 6 6qe$d

¶31

application till the,dafe of r"u#ution ; :t ,.

¶32

W,,-#

¶33

(OA.No.313 of 2023)

¶34

c) A sum of Rs.3,32,924/in loan account no.86437021000008 with interest @ 9.35olo p.a from date of application till the date of rea lization ;

¶35

d) A sum of Rs.2,00,683/in loan account no.864365610000002 with interest @ 9.35o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶36

The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the

¶37

hypothecatedproperty as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

t4. Commu Q^{copy of the order to the parties concerned.}

¶43

bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
!Qt,2024)
Jr'
r"
*
sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
; PRESIDING OFFICER
,r{@'

Bank of India v. M/S. Venkateswara Borewells

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. Venkateswara Borewells

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sri. K. Ramakrishnareddy

State Bank of India versus Mr.. P . Shravan Kumar

Mr Sikander Ali versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri. Jadav Gangadhar Rao

State Bank of India versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Narasimha Poultry