Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Murli Polymer

DRT8 Aug 2024OA/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an Original Application filed by Karur Vysya Bank for recovery of a loan of approximately Rs. 5.72 crores against a proprietary concern, its proprietor, and a guarantor. Upon finding the defendants absent, the Tribunal held the bank's claim substantiated and granted relief for principal, interest, and enforcement against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 5.72 crores plus interest at 16.15% p.a. from filing date; enforcement against mortgaged properties and personal liabilities of guarantors.

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Murli Polymer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 8rH DAy oF AUGUsr, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.54 ol 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

The KarurVysya Bank Ltd, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Abids, Hyderabad. Represented by its authorized officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Murli Polymer, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Praveen Kedia, shed no.5, Plot no.85, part Sy.No.48,

¶9

10A, Kattedan, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy - 500 077.

¶10

Also at

¶11

M/s. Murli Polymer,

¶12

Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Praveen Kedia, shop no.4, 4th floor, United Arcade, pillar No.143, Attapur, Hyderabad - 500 048.

¶13

MrPraveen Kedia (Proprietor & Guarantor) s/o Sam Sunder Kedia, major, occ: business, male, sunrise villa No.150, Near pillar No.1B0, Upparpally, Hyderabad - 500 048.

¶14

¶15

MrsNishaKedia (g ua rantor) eq sunrise t**:;i::r,h*::1",. villa no.150, near i - ",'[" _ - U_ pillar no,180, Uppaipalty, -) [ I IUB MI: Hyderabad- 500048.', :, a nts n:Qui&

¶16

(OA.No.54 of 2024)

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant Sri Lanka Jagannadham For the Defendants Exparte

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.5,72,O9,96g.41ps (Rupees Five Crores Seventy Two Iakhs Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and paise forty One only) (Rs.4,25,27,483.79ps + Rs.t,46,82,484.62ps ) with subsequent interest @ 16.15olo p.a from date of firing of oA tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Proprietary concern, represented by defendant no.2 as its proprietor and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor avaired cash credit facirity of Rs.7.00 crores and Rs.3.00 crores towards Bank guarantee on 04.08.2015. The defendant No.2 deposited originar titre deeds of immovabre properties and created equitable mortgage of immovable properties as a collateral security. Defendant no.1 again avai credit of Rs.1.00 crore on 20.07 .20t7. oerenq(.r$ro.ifi""j ,rI?no.5 Blated oB,ud the tifle deeds of 'ti".l schedule mentioned prpp"rtil gorlut.*ftlfn *jfts"s" in favour of

¶22

i,'::^,ilr, .Q;xi99'

¶23

(OA.No.54 of 2024)

¶24

Applicant bank. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 03.rr.2022 and issued demand notice dated 07.L2.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

counser for Defendants No.1 to 3 cared absent and set exparte on 02.05.2024.

¶26

Sri PNSV ChalapathiRao, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex,A.1 to A.21.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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?

¶29

Defendants cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was ..- " l]il:ll i::'ffiffi^':j;l,,j:

¶30

their claim made in the oA ii"gairgtgffitpe@hOud nd hence the ..is

¶31

(OA.No.s4 of 2024)

¶32

Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,72,O9,969.41ps (Rupees Five Crores Seventy Two lakhs Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight and paise forty One only)(Rs.4,25,27,483.79ps + Rs.!,46,82,484.62ps ) with subsequent interest @ 16.15olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶35

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

The Applicant shall weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶39

(OA.No.54 of 2024)

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open ' court on this the 8th day of Aug,2024)

¶43

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

rtvm "ifh[:,';ffi'^'

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Murli Polymer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Murli Polymer

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Pemmada Aneesh

Smt Ca Suvarna Kumari versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vinodini Filling Station

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/.S. Sri Anjaneya Family Restaurant

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Nikita Traders

Mr Iytha Yugender versus State Bank of India