Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. M. Shiva Prasad

DRT7 Oct 2024OA/347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT-I Hyderabad allowed OA.No.347 of 2022 filed by Canara Bank. The Court held the bank established its claim. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 33,35,939.97 with interest, and the bank can proceed against mortgaged property and the estate of guarantor heirs.

What did the court decide?

The OA was allowed. Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 33,35,939.97 with 10.20% p.a. interest. Recovery certificate issued. Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Shiva Prasad — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7rH DAy OF OCTOBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.347 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank, (E-Syndicate Bank), New Mehdipatnam branch, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO O2g. Represented by its Constituted Attorney and GpA holder and Senior Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. M. Shiva^prasad, (legal heir and guarantor) S/o M. Sambashiva Rao, Aged major, R/o flat no.g01, Sai Sagar Heights, pattigadda Prakash Nagar, Near Old RR District court, Secunderabad.

¶9

Ms. SatwikaManasa, D/o M. Shiva^prasad, Legal Heir of Smt M. Usha Rani, W/o Shiva prasad Aged major, female, R/o flat no.B01, Sai Sagar Heights, pattigadda Prakash Nagar, Near Old RR District court, Secunderabad.

¶10

Mr. RudhraTapasvi, s/o M. Shiva^prasad, aged major, male, legal heir of Smt. M. Usha Rani, W/o Shiva prasad, Aged major, female,

¶11

/ o[:t ,,,
k#7

¶12

(oA3a7 ot 20221

¶13

R/o flat no.801, Sai Sagar Heights,^pattigadda Prakash Nagar, Near Old RR District court, Secunderabad.

¶14

Sri G. Sitarama Chandra Gupta, (guarantor) S/o G. Mohan Rao, aged major, 3-2-Il4/8, 1't floor, Ganesh nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 500 013.

¶15

Defenda nts

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶18

Sri Thirumal Rao Mamidala Exparte

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.33,35,g39.g7ps (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine and paise Eighty Seven only) with future interest @ 10.20olo p.a with monthry rests from 27.06.2022 ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedure to oA.

¶21

As per the averments in the apg[caIiel, the Applicant Bank states that Smt M. Usha Rani, -f6&*f$Nvd/ derendant no.1 is the original borrower ,?,#^{n",f, ;nN,;' ;;";.;;;..;} subsequently died leavi s"he, 6luio568 ff:br,irlfllasad who is tesat tJ .rt -€tr 'ffv' k;;;

¶22

loA.347^{ot 2oz2)}

¶23

heir and guarantor, other legal heirs (defendants no.2 and 3) and defendant no.4 stood as guarantor. The schedule mentioned property was mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank by deposit of title deeds vide Doc.No.2050/2OB at SRO, Secunderabad. After availing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 14.t0.2021 and possession notice dated 14.03.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶24

Defendants No.1 to 4 called absent and set exparte on 2g.02.2024.

¶25

Sri R. Laxmikanth, Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as

¶26

AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as

¶27

Ex.A.1to A.10.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

prayed for?

¶32

DeFendants cal
of the Applica t;r";, ^E ";m
07I]cI?n4 *
EI
. - .\J
&,#9

¶33

To substantiate the case the Applicant Bank was

¶34

lOA3a7 of 20221

¶35

examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. 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 Applicant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶36

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.33,35,g39.g7ps (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine and paise Eighty Seven only) with future interest @ 10.20% p.a from 27.06.2022 til the date of realization;

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the schedule mentioned mortgaged property towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

The Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due. However, the appricant bank is entitred to proceed onry to the extent of estate devorved upon the regar heirs from the deceased smt M. Usha Rani.

¶39

The Applicant Ban
f the OA.
* lTICTmt t
o
aJ
S*.

¶40

(OA.347 of 20221

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed court on this the 7th day of Oct,2024)^by_her,^{corrected,signedand pronounced by me in theopen}

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ft<br>

J ororrrmrr :
Q,ttr#

ffiw
lrsl. ntgrttTtt
Itet l, l+ l:ltlmD'

Canara Bank v. Mr. M. Shiva Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. M. Shiva Prasad

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

Veladi Bhadraiah versus State Bank of India

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Adepu Anuradha

Catherine Paul Boyapalli versus Varthana Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Gopiraj Kothapeta versus Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. Ltd.