Allowed

Ms Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Rarc) v. M/S. Aswarth Usha

DRT17 Jan 2024OA/37/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT allowed the DAC application filed by Indian Overseas Bank seeking recovery of an outstanding debt along with interest. The Court held that the bank had established its claim through documentary evidence and proceedings, making all respondents jointly liable for payment and allowing the bank to proceed against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs. 2.48 Crore with interest and costs; right to proceed against mortgaged properties and persons.

Ms Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Rarc) versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.37 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Chikkadpally branch, Lane opposite to chandana Brothers, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Ms, AswarthUsha, D/o Sri A. Narayan Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Proprietrix, Pavaki Poultry Farms,

¶10

C-2, 6-L-387, Hill Colony, Vanasthalipuram,

¶11

Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶12

Sri J. Rajendra Reddy,
s/o Sri A, Narayan reddy, aged
about 54 years, Proprietor,
JPR Poultry farm, C-2,6-1-387,
Hill colony, Vanasthalipuram,
Hyderabad - 500 070. Defendants
Counsel for the Parti
For the Applicant Sri M.V.K. Viswanadham
For the Defenda [* -'B 'l
A. Tulsi Raj Gokul
r liit 2[2f
1'r
1. The Applicant
resent OA against Defendants for
recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,49,O9,2G4l- (Rupees Two Crores

¶13

(oA.No.37l2022)

¶14

Forty Eight Lakhs Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty four only) with current and future interest @ 9.650lo p.a with monthly rests from the date of apprication ti[ the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedules "A to C" to OA.

¶15

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 availed credit facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/_ vide sanction retter dated 20.02.2019 for pourtry business. Defendant no.1 executed demand promissory note for Rs.1.00 crore, letter of continuity, letter of undertaking and retter of hypothecation of agricultural advances. Defendant no.2 executed a guarantee deed dated 25'02.2019. To secure due repayment of cash credit facirity of Rs.1.00 crore, defendant no.2 executed demand promissory note, letter of continuity, letter of undertaking etc. Defendants created equitabre mortgage of immovabre properties more fufly described in the schedules "A to C,, by deposit of original title deeds dated 11.01'2019 and documents no.496 and 497/20L9 and arso executed registered memorandum of deposit of tiile deeds on Lg.o2.2org. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as d28 .02.2020 and issued recall notices da 1 and demand

¶16

(oA.No.3712022)

¶17

notice on 09.06,2021.Inspite of several requests and demands, the

¶18

defendants did not clear the outstanding, Hence this OA.

¶19

Ld counsel for defendants shrirulsi Raj Gokul filed vakalath but failed to file written statement.

¶20

shri Gonna Suresh, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.31.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

prayed for?

¶25

7, Defendants counser fired vakarath but did not fire written statement. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.31. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence entitled to recover the

¶26

claim made in the OA rei 1 z ,rrt1 2n21

¶27

(oA.No.3712022)

¶28

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

¶29

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,48,OgA64l- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Eight Lakhs Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty four onty) with current and future interest @ 9.650lo p.a from the date of applicationtill realization.

¶30

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable properties as described in the schedules^..A to C., to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

14, Issue Recovery certiflcate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

( Dictated her, correqtlO, signed and pronounced by me in the open
court on
:1 sd/-
| 1fi n2l (G. coPtCHAND)
PRES!DING OFFICER
TVtr:::A --- YVt
olU' /-d,Uts,^ffi*\ (,[*^
Arst. Registra, ln
oau, niil'iiiloo.

Ms Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Rarc) v. M/S. Aswarth Usha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Rarc) v. M/S. Aswarth Usha

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

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Paturi Muralikrishna

Indian Bank versus M/S. Dsb Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Narashimha Binny Rice Mill

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Disha Systems India Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M S. Datta Filling Station

Indian Bank versus M/S. S.V. Logistics