Allowed

Indian Bank v. Sanghi Manoj Kumar

DRT5 Aug 2024OA/410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Indian Bank against Sanghi Manoj Kumar for recovery of dues totaling Rs.47,98,317.27 plus interest and allowance for sale of hypothecated movables after finding the bank's evidence satisfactory and the defendant's defense untenable.

What did the court decide?

The defendant was ordered to pay Rs.47,98,317.27 with subsequent interest and the bank was authorized to proceed against hypothecated movables and other properties.

Indian Bank versus Sanghi Manoj Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE srHDAy OF AUGUST,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.410 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Bank, Himayathnagar branch, Hyderabad, Telangana. Represented by its Manager And GPA holder

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sanghi Manoj Kumar, Represented by its sole proprietor Sanghi Manoj Kumar, S/o Surendranath, male, Aged about 33 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.7-3-439, Ghasmandi Audiak Nagar, Secunderabad

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Smt P. Revathi

For the Defendant

Sri Kshatri Sunil Singh

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of (Pj:,.lRuoees^Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Eight rrri,itriia seventeen

¶18

(Pj:,.lRuoees^Forty rrri,itriia seventeen

¶19

and paise Twenty seven i.e1 5 IUC ?Il?t H.,:;6 .i -3'Ko^*,o"At$ '.i11i-L$'v"EB1r_)rl

¶20

(OA.No.410 of 2022)

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.33,87,342.44ps in term loan account with subsequent interest @ 15.50o/o p.a from t4.LL.2022 till the date of realization;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.2,96,764.11ps in FITL account with subsequent interest @ 10.10o/o p.afrom 14.Lt.2022 till the date of realization;

¶23

c) A sum of Rs.3,31,659.62ps in respect of GECLS account with interest @ 10.10olo p.a from 14.LL.2022 till the date of realization;

¶24

d) A sum of Rs.7,82,551.10ps in respect of GECLS Extension account with interest @ 10.10o/o p.a from 14.tL.2022 till the date of realization;

¶25

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed credit facilities for purchase of Bulk LPG TankerTruck under InDhanVahana Scheme. The defendant availed term loan of Rs.30,97,595/-, Bank guarantee of Rs.4,00,000/- and clean OD of Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.11.2018. The defendant executed the demand promissory note, letter of continuity, disposal of proceeds letter, term loan agreement, agreement of hypothecation of vehicles etc dated 17.11.2018. The defendant executed the necessa ypothecated the vehicle purchased by way tion of movables. To ti secu re d ue repaymefi t'.rof stdfaftff iqflta along with interest

¶27

(OA.No.410 of 2022)

¶28

and charges, the defendant also executed an acknowledgement of debt cum security acknowledging the debt and executed letter of continuity for further loan facilities obtained.

¶29

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facility and failed 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 applicant bank issued legal notice dated 16.09.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.47,98,317.27ps (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand Three hundred Seventeen and paise Twenty seven only) withsubsequent interest @ 17.00% p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶30

(oA.No.410 of 2022)

¶31

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 34 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.34. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶32

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶33

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶34

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

¶35

ii) To what relief ?

¶36

Point No.i):

¶37

AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant have clearly deposed the liability of the defendant. Exhibits A. 1 to A.34 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶38

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 defendant having taken the plea that the j, applicant bank did not, follow lhe re^:.RBI .RBI guidelines, signed on ;:{ !' i. . ";\ ceftain documents;'dHO i' tfratr.Se presiii was barred by itt - n⁽ irn inqr limitation, failed to placei.iahyA$irUd&lhtiat.,pioof to that effect. 4

¶39

(oA.No.410 of 2022)

¶40

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 entiued to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶43

The Defendant is liable to pay Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.47,98,317.27ps (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand Three hundred Seventeen and paise Twenty seven only) i.e.,

¶44

a) A sum of Rs.33,87,342.44ps in term loan account with subsequent interest @ :15.5-9: p.a from t4.rr.2022 tiil the ..,. .. " ". t ii .: ::.

¶45

A ( [lJ8 ?fl71 t il

¶46

(OA.No.410 of 2022)

¶47

b) A sum of Rs.2,96,764.11ps in FITL account with subsequent interest @ 10.10o/o p.a from 14.1L.2022 till the date of realization;

¶48

c) A sum of Rs,3,31,659.62ps in respect of GECLS account with interest @ 10.10olo p.a from 14.LL.2022 till the date of realization;

¶49

d) A sum of Rs,7,82,551.10ps in respect of GECLS Extension account with interest @ 10.10olo p.a from L4.Lt.2022 till the date of realization;

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

The Applicant Bank is entitled 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

t4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
2024)
,*P sd/_
't
- TRUEcqqY
(G. GOPTCHAND)
{u.sj;g;}-
PRESIDING OFFICER
Arsf. ??oglstr;: '-
ERr'-t. '{iYnFrrAFiP t'i '

Indian Bank v. Sanghi Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Sanghi Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus Sri Macharla Naresh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Kirthi Goel

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Yrk Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Balaji Trading Company

State Bank of India versus Sri. Narsimhulu Muggu

State Bank of India versus Smt. Usha Sree