Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. D.J. Mining Equipment

DRT29 Jan 2024OA/56/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the respondent bank's Original Application for recovery of a term loan of Rs. 97 lakhs hypothecated for an excavator. The court held the bank established its claim and awarded recovery of the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are liable to pay Rs. 65,19,759 with interest at 12.75% p.a. and costs; the Order is communicated and a Recovery Certificate is to be issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. D.J. Mining… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29THDAY OF JANUARY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.56 ol2022

¶5

Between :

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Adarshnagar branch, Situated at 5-9-305A, Paigah Plaza building, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 063. Represented by its Chief Manager Sri Arshad Perwaiz

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. D J Mining Equipment, Represented by its^proprietary Mr. Ubbapalli Sandeep, Aged 24 years, occ: business, R/o H. No.9-4 -50/2t, Tolichowki, Golkonda, Telangana - 500 009.

¶10

Mr. Ubbapalli Sandeep, Aged 24 years, occ: business, R/o H. No. 1-4 -124, No.2, Basthi, Sanjeevaiah colony, Khammam - 507 111.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri M, Srinivas

Shri K. KalyanChakravarthy
*
?s ' :r i't
,.+

¶17

(oA. No. s612022)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.65,19,759l- (Rupees Sixty five Lakhs Nineteen thousand Seven hundred and Fifty Nine only) with further interest @ L2.75o/o p.awith monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor defendant no.2 availed term loan facility of Rs.97.00 lakhs for purchase of Hyundai Hydrauric Excavator Moder Robex 390Lc-9 on 10.10.2017 and hypothecated the same to the Applicant bank. The defendants executed demand promissory note for a sum of rs.92.00 lakhs, retter of undertaking, term roan agreementand deed of hypothecation dated 10.10.2017. After avairing the roan facility, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 31.03.2020 and issued recail notice dated 06.05.2020. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

¶22

but not filed WS. ryil*?

¶23

(OA.No.s612022)

¶24

SmtlavanyaKumarilpparti, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10,

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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?

¶27

7' Defendants counsel filed vakalath but did not file written statement. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶28

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

¶29

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum L9,759/-^(Rupees Sixty five and Fifty Nine only)

¶30

;n ,l

¶31

(OA.No.s5/2022)

¶32

with further interest @ 12.75o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till

¶33

realization.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶37

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the P.A', kanscribed-by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2gthday of Jan 2OZ4)

¶40

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

rt""f'ff*d ,-!",1i'a1?111'il{^r.

¶42

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. D.J. Mining Equipment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. D.J. Mining Equipment

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Bandarapu Ramesh

Sri Pasumarthi Ashwin Kumar versus Bhadradri Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Fortune Aparels

Indian Overseas Bank, versus M/S. Anusha Industries

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Krishna Plywood

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Maruthi Agencies