Allowed

Indian Bank v. Mrs. Voondinty Sampurna

DRT9 Jul 2024OA/55/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the bank sought recovery of outstanding dues from a borrower with a total amount of Rs.48,09,155/- along with interest and costs. The Tribunal adjudicated on the bank's claim.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.48,09,155/- including interest, along with costs. Order to be communicated to parties.

Indian Bank versus Mrs. Voondinty Sampurna — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THrs rHE^{grH DAY oF JULY'2024}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER} OA.No.55 ol 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Indlan Bank,

¶6

Narayanaguda branch, Panchavati mall, H.No.3-5-943, First floor, Hyderabad -^29' Rep by its authorized^officer Cum Asst General^Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mrs. VoondintysamPurna, w/o V. Ramesh, female,^major, H.No. 1-2-387132, domalguda, Near A.V. College, Hyderabad.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the^{Pa rties:}

¶12

For the Applicant For the Defendant

¶13

Sri B. Prabhakara Rao Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Appllcant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendant for}

¶16

recovery of a total sum of Rs.48,O9,155/-^(Rupees Forty Eight

¶17

sand One hundred and fifty fiveonly ) ie.., .36,24,6601- under term loan IndhanVahanwith f^r,"G''

¶18

o/o p.a with monthly rests from 25.LL.2022 till the j n s'ib"L'"ffr@ I7n d":, oir"uriE Rtar,,-fl}'

¶19

(OA.No.55 of 2023 )

¶20

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.37,519/-^{underOD - Indhanvahanwith interest} lO.2Oo/o p.a with monthly^{rests from25'L1.2022till the date} of realization;

¶22

c) A sum of Rs.4,29,312/-^{under term} loan (FITL) with interest @ 25.11.2022 till the date of

¶23

7.85o/o p.a with monthly^restsfrom realization;

¶24

d) A sum of Rs.7,17,664/-^{under GECLSwith interest @ 9.25olop.a} with monthly rests from^{25.tL.2022till the date of realization;}

¶25

As per the averments in the^{application,the ApplicantBankstates} that defendant availed term^loan of^{Rs.30,97,595/-;bank guarantee} of Rs.4.00 lakhs and a clean^OD of^{Rs.1.00 lakh vide sanction} 14.11.2018. The defendant executed^{demand promissory note,} disposal of^proceeds letter,^{mediumtermloan agreement,letter of} continuity, agreement for open^{cash credit and sanction ticket dated} 14.11.2018 and 07.10.2019. The defendant^{also availedInd-GECLS} Covid-19 for Rs.6,35,000/- on 06.01.2020 and^{executeddemand} promissory note, term loan agreement, agreement of hypothecation of movables, agreement of hypothecation of vehicles etc^on 16.10.2020. After availing the loan facilities, the defendant failed to the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was {. $. fF 4i$strainEp Q^{classifythe accountas NPA and issuedlegal notice} ../j. I I - Y dfteAOrcr.odabzz l5lrEvEUrq_rvvri Inspite of severat requests and demands, the -1 .:,.1+ r{. clear the outstanding. Hence this OA. N.i}",'Pj-'>zxvoI. {ournv^t);

auo puesnoql eu!N

'"ar(^I;uo ea;;

'l'"^,.' .,-A,.

'69'amn6 g .,-A,.

JO^Luns lelol^e )ueg luesrlddv aqt ol ed ol alqetl s

¶32

:rapun se 's1soc qlran paMolle sr y6 luasald aq1

¶33

'slsol pue lseloJut aJ nlnJ

¶34

t1l!M VO aql ur epeu ultell eLll renoleJ ol palltlue st lue€ querrlddy eql a3uaq pue luepueJe6 aull lsule6p VO aLll ut eppul ilJtell leLll paqsrlqplsa seq )ueg luecrlddy aLll leql ploq I 'a^oqe eql Jo Mat^ uI^'vz'v 01 IV'xf se sluaurnlop lue^alar pallqlLlxe eq pue peutuexa spM lue€ 1uec1lddy aLlt Jo lenUJo 'I'A V ')ueB luecllddy aq1 1o asef eql elprluelsqns 01^'alredxa las pue luesqe peller luepuala6 'L

¶35

2ro1^peAeld

¶36

se luepuaJa6 aql lsurebe VO eql ur epeur uJlelt aL{l roJ paltrlua sr )iueg lueollddV eLll reLlleqM s! uolleraprsuol JoJ aspe leql lulod aql^'9

¶37

'lueB tuecilddv aql roJ lasuno] 'pt aqt preaH 'S

¶38

'vz'v otr I'v'xl se pa)rPur ore

¶39

qcrqan 'sluaunfop lue^alar palrqrqxa pue I'MV se JlasLurq paurltlexa )ueg luecrlddv^aql 1o^la6eue61 larrlJ 'erpuerlf^r.lspr.lqnS l.rqS^'b

¶40

'EZOZ'60'BI uo ayedxa les pue luasqe pallel luepuaJa6 'E

¶41

(€zoz lo ss oN Vo)

¶42

(OA.No.55 of 2023)

¶43

a) A sum of Rs.36,24,660/- under term^{loan IndhanVahan with} interest @ 9.35olo p.a from 25.LL.2022 till the date^of realization;

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.37,519/- under OD - IndhanVahan with interest @ t0.2Oo/o p.a from 25.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶45

c) A sum of Rs.4,29,3L2/- under term loan^(FITL) with interest @ 7.85o/o p.a from 25.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶46

d) A sum of Rs.7,!7,664/- under GECLS with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a from 25.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

municate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

,^{transcribed by her,} corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open of )uly , 2024) (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER. d"Hw"'d,

¶53

onrJ. iii,ll{!i,.n

Indian Bank v. Mrs. Voondinty Sampurna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Mrs. Voondinty Sampurna

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Lambadi Gulab Singh

Canara Bank versus Sri Bassi Godhavari @ Godawari @ Godavari

Canara Bank versus Sri Bassi Bicha @ Bassy Bitchya @ Bassi Bitchya

State Bank of India versus M/S. Msp Filling Station

State Bank of India versus Ark Logistics

Mr Nellore Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy versus Union Bank of India