Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited, v. Smt. Kondapalli Indira

DRT13 Nov 2024OA/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery of dues arising from agricultural and term loan defaults, the Debts Recovery Tribunal examined record evidence including agricultural loans sanctioned. The court held that the bank established its claim and ordered the defendants to pay the principal amount with future interest, allowing the bank to proceed against mortgaged properties and individuals for re

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 32,02,02.75 plus future interest at 10.75 p.a.; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and persons of defendants for realization and awarded costs.

Karnataka Bank Limited, versus Smt. Kondapalli… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

(oA.39 of 2024)

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.39 ot 2024

¶5

Between;

¶6

Karnataka Bank Ltd, D.No. 1 1-4-3l1/1, Ground ftoor, Nehru nagar Main road, Khammam, Telangana State. Represented by its GpA holder

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SmtKondapalli Indira, W/o KondapalliJoga Rao,

¶10

19-"9,u.?or.t^{64_years, occ: agricutrure,} R/o H.No. 1-393, Kallurumandal, Peruvancha, Khammam,

¶11

TS - 507 209.

¶12

M.r. KondapalliRadhakrishna, s/o KondapalliJoga Rao,

¶13

f,S^!O 9O_oy!^{45 years, occ:business,} H.No.1-393, Kalluru Mandal, Peruvancha, Khammam, Ts_507 209.

¶14

Mr. Kondapa llisrin ivasa Rao, S/o KondapalliJoga Rao,

¶15

t9"q 1T:t^{41 years, occ:business,} R/o 1-393, Kallurumanda l, Khammam, peruvancha TS- 507 209.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

-: "''

¶18

Counsel for the parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri N. Rama Rao

Sri R. Rajendra^prasad

¶23

(oA.39 of 2024)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.53r2O,2O2.lSps (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Two hundred Two and paise Seventy Five only) with future interest @ 10.75olo p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA til the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶26

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a farmer and defendants 2 & 3 are sons of defendant no.1 availed crop loan of Rs.39,70,000/_ on OB.O3.2O1B, The defendants executed loan documents of composite agreement for Kisan credit card facirity and term roan facirity, undertaking letter, decraration etc in favour of Appricant bank. Defendants 1 to 3 deposited their originar titre deeds of immovabre properties towards collateral security and also created regd mortgage by executing Reg. Memorandum of deposit of tiUe deeds. After availing the loan facility, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on

¶27

09.03.202t and issued demand notice

¶28

Inspite of
clea r the
h
'i
13 Nl[ rvt i
':/ Hyf !.'" -r<ir<br>.!.!g!.:*

¶29

several requests and demands, outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

(oA.39 of 2024)

¶31

Sri R. Rajendra Prasad, counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file Written statement.

¶32

Sri S.M. Arif Hussain, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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?

¶35

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file WS. 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.13. 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.

¶36

B. In the resu lt, allowed with costs, as under:
The Defe severally. liable to pay to tt rrr
IP
nonricant{fBeno i f,flh,r,im "t 3,20t202.75ps (Rupees Fifty
a
r.6
W:, :'r,t$$

¶37

(OA.39 of 202a)

¶38

Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Two hundred Two and paise Seventy Five only) with future interest @ 10.75olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶39

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶40

properties as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶41

debt due.

¶42

The Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a cc ot the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated ro the p.A., ,."n.'o' courtonthLin-e,ij;;;;;-"T,i:i,%!?;.o..u.,uo,sisnedandpronouncedbyme intheopen

¶48

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

13|l0lJ

¶50

Karnataka Bank Limited, v. Smt. Kondapalli Indira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited, v. Smt. Kondapalli Indira

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 M/S. Sri Vasthav Vermi Products

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Srinivasa Traders

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Roja Pvc Implements

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Cold Care Agritech

Kosetty Krishna versus Bank of Baroda

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Vema Subha Rani