Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S. Dhandem Anandam

DRT31 Jul 2024OA/40/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of Rs.46.77 Lacs against a sole proprietor. The court found the executed documents established the defendant's liability, dismissed the defense of forgery and limitation, and ordered recovering the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs.46,77,619/- plus interest; permission to proceed against hypothecated movables and other properties; order of costs.

Indian Bank versus M/S. Dhandem Anandam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 31STDAY OF JIILY,2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.4O ot 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Indian Bank, Himayathnagar branch, Hyderabad, Telangana. Represented by its Asst. Gen Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. DhandemAnandam, Represented by its sole proprietor Sri DhandemAnandam, S/o Dhandem Narsaiah, aged 47 years, male, 12-15 VCL-13 OU campus, VC Lodge Basthi, Jamai Osmania, Hyderabad - 5OO OO7.

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the parties:

¶11

For the Applicant Smt P. Revathi

¶12

For the Defendant

¶13

Sri Kshatri Sunil Singh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of 619/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Seventy red and Nineteen

only) i.e.,

(oA.No.4012023)

a) A sum of Rs.33,36,0L6/- in term loan account with subsequent interest @ 15.50o/o p.a with monthly rests till the date of realization;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs.2,87,5s4.44ps in FITL account with interest @ 10.10olo p.a with monthry rests from 19.01.2023 ti[ the date of realization;

¶21

c) A sum of Rs.2,7O,92L.L7ps in GECLS account with interest @ 10.10o/o p.a with monthry rests from 19.01.2023 tiil the date of realization;

¶22

d) A sum of Rs.7,83,127.6Lps in GECLS Extension account with interest @ 10.10olo p.a with monthly rests from 19.01.2023 till the date of realization;

¶23

and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant avaired credit facirities for purchase of Bulk LPG Tank truck under InDhanVahana scheme. The defendant availed term loan of Rs.30,97,595/, GECLS extension of Rs.7,34,000/- GECLS of Rs.3,50,000/ and FITL of Rs.45,765/_. The defendant executed the demand promissory note, disposal of proceeds letter, term loan of hypothecation of vehicles etc dated L7. executed the necessary documents purchased by To secure due

¶25

(oA.No.a0l2023)

¶26

repayment of said facilities sanctioned along with interest and charges, the defendant arso executed an acknowredgement of debt cum security acknowledging the debt and executed letter of continuity for further loan facilities obtained.

¶27

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have avaired the said roan facirity and faired to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the appricant bank issued regar notice dated t0.o9.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.46t77,6lg/- (Rupees Forty six Lakhs seventy seven thousand six hundred and Nineteen onry) with future interest @ 15.50o/o p.a, @ 10.10o/o p.a respectively with monthly rests from date of OA till date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶28

The Defendant fired written statement denied a[ the ailegations made by Applicant bank. The defendant denied the execution of documents and deposit of tiue deeds with the Applicant bank. It is contended that the OA is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. It is alleged that t nk obtained signatures on various papers without through with the contents made thereundeii iss the OA.

¶29

(oA.No.40/2023)

¶30

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by SriNakkala Suresh yadav, Assistant Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 28 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.28. Defendant examined herself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶31

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶32

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶33

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ?

¶34

ii) To what relief ?

¶35

Point No.i):

¶36

AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant have clearly deposed the riabirity of the defendant. Exhibits A.1 to A.28 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶37

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendant. Even though defendant examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The g taken the plea that the applicant bank !/ uidelines, signed on :i certain documentS ,:r: and- that the o OA was barred by , Jl,tmnir limitation, failed to that effect. 't],,j &*Y ,W

¶38

(OA.No.40/2023)

¶39

Moreover, a perusal of the documents executed by the bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. The defendant very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant is liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

B, In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶42

The Defendant is liable to pay Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.46,77,6L9/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Seventy Seven thousand Six hundred and Nineteen only) i.e.,

¶43

a) A sum of Rs.33,36,0L6/- in term loan account with subsequent interest @ 15.50o/o p.a till the date of realization;

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.2,B7 |ITL^accountwith interest @

¶45

10.10olo p.a ate of rea lization; i.y ccount with interest

¶46

1o.1oolo p.a u6, ,'r.lrl9brf;l of realization;

¶47

(oA.No.40/2023)

¶48

d) A sum of Rs,7,g3,127.6Lps in GECLS Extension account with

¶49

interest @ 10.10olo p.a from 19.01.2023 till the date of realization;

¶50

The applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA.

¶51

10' the Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

L4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶55

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3lstday ot )uly,2024)

¶57

sd/-

¶58

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

rragworyL--=
Lt, to26':N
^;+flfltf:;'",

Indian Bank v. M/S. Dhandem Anandam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S. Dhandem Anandam

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Sri Durga Packaging

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gavva Vara Lakshmi

State Bank of India versus Era Educational Society

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Spyksz Spa

Bank of India versus M/S. Dlk Bio Briquette

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Venkata Sai Foods