Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Hotel Swagath Grand

DRT23 Sept 2024OA/471/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Hyderabad allowed Original Application No. 477 of 2022 filed by Bank of India. Bank sought recovery of Rs. 52,52,885.19 due to cash credit and GECL accounts. Defendants did not file written statement or appear for evidence. Court held defendants liable to pay the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 52,52,885.19 with future interest and costs; issuing recovery certificate.

Bank of India versus M/S Hotel Swagath Grand — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB, (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 477 OF 2022

¶4

Bank of India Khairatabad Branch Ground Floor PTI Building, AC Guards Masab Tank Hydera bad-500004 Rep. by its Chief Manager. ....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Hotel Swagath Grand Proprietrix, Anitha S t7 -t-382/V/r/2&3 Vyshali Nagar, Champapet Hyderabad- 500079.

¶7

Mrs. S. Anitha W/o Sri Sattur Pradeep Goud Proprietrix - Hotel Swagath Grand Flat No. 402, B-Block Door No. 8-L-299/A/75 Aditya Hill Top, Road No.82 Jubilee Hills, Film Nagar Extn. Hydera bad- 500096.

¶8

... Defendants.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. K.V. Nageswara Rao. Counsel for Defendants : No representation. E+P,

6fu"^

oA.47rl2022

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA for recoveryof a total} sum of Rs.52,52,885.19Ps^{(Rs.43,81,221.03PstowardsCash} Credit account with future^interest @13.10olo^{p.a. with monthly} rests inclusive of 2olo^penal interest and^{Rs.8,71664.16Ps} towards GECL account with future interest @9.50o/o^{p.a with} monthly rests inclusive of 2o/o^penal interest)^{from the} defendants 1 and 2 from the date^of Application^{till the date of} realisation along with costs.

¶15

The averments of appllcant bank as^{per the OA, briefly, are that} 1't defendant is a^partnership firm and defendants^{availed cash} credit to a tune of Rs.40 lakhs in the^year 2017,^{followed by} Star GECL of Rs.7.50 lakhs in the Yeat 2020 by^{executing all} necessary loan documents. Defendants agreed for^{payment of} loans with floating rates of interest.^Applicant bank^issuedlegal notice dated 09.06.2022 demanding the outstanding^dues payable towards the loan accounts as they did not maintain the account as per the agreed terms. Repeated requests^and demands did not^yield any^positive results.^Hence, the^present oA.

¶16

Though defendants entered appearance through thelr counsel V. Sreenivasa Rao, they did not choose to file written statement. Hence their right of filing written statement forfeited vide docket order dated 74.09.2023.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined E. Thilagavathi, Senior Manager as AW-1 and marked 24 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex.4.24.

ffii*\

o A.471,/2022

Defendants' right of adducing evidence has been forfeited for non-representation vide docket order dated 20.08.2024.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Defendants' right of advancing arguments forfeited vide docket order dated 10.09.2024. Perused the material placed on record.

¶23

According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank, defendants failed to repay the loan as per the agreed terms. Further, defendants failed to pursue the case in spite of affording good number of adjournments. Accordingly, the OA claim may be allowed in favour of the applicant bank basing on the Exs. A.1 to A.24 and the recitals therein.

¶24

B, The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants?

¶26

As stated supra, defendants did not choose either to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.24 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.47 I/ 2022 is allowed as under:s,tu

¶28

oA.47712022

¶29

¶30

i) The Defendants are liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs. Rs.52,52,885. 19Ps (Rs.43,81,221.03Ps under Cash Credit account and Rs.8,71,664.16Ps under GECL account along with interest @7.50%^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

ii) the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for recovery of its dues; and

¶32

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶34

t2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned and upload on Web Portal,

¶36

(Dicrated to rhe steno. signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this rhe 23"t day of September, 2021).

¶37

u1-\

¶38

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. M/S Hotel Swagath Grand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Hotel Swagath Grand

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Pallavi Mini Rice Mill

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Kiran Sahu and Smt Kiran Shah

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank versus Shri Shivendra Mohan

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Gonuduntla Vishalakshmi

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Food Products

Icici Bank Limited versus Rk Enterprises