Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank, v. M/S. Anusha Industries

DRT29 Jan 2024OA/58/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Application for recovery of a term loan defaulted by M/s. Anusha Industries and its proprietor, Ms. Eddula Anusha, was heard by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad. The court found the bank had established its claim due to lack of defense and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,13,81,633.99 with 12.75% p.a. interest; issue recovery certificate.

Indian Overseas Bank, versus M/S. Anusha Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.58 ol 2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

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

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Anusha Industries, Represented by its proprietary, Ms. EddulaAnusha, D/o Eddula Vijay Bhaskar, Aged 28 years, occ: business, R/o H. No.B-3 -228/ 678/ SB5, Karmic nagar, yousufguda, Khairtabad, Hyderabad _ 45.

¶8

Ms. EddulaAnusha,

¶9

Counsel for th For the Appli For the De

¶10

Defendants Sri M. Srinlvas Shri K. KalyanChakravarthy

¶11

(oA. No.s8/2022)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,13,81,633.99ps (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Eighty one thousand Six hundred Thirty three and paise Ninety nine only) with further interest @ 12.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of rea lization.

¶14

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.96.00 lakhs for purchase of four wire dresser machines used for cutting rocks on 27.12.2077 and hypothecated the same to the Applicant bank. The defendants executed demand promissory note for a sum of Rs.96.00 lakhs, letter of undertaking, term loan agreement, letter of authorisation and deed of hypothecation dated 27.12.20L7. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 31.03.2020 and issued recall notice dated 06.05.2020. Inspite uests and demands, the defendants did not nce this OA.

¶15

29JANmf 3. Counsel for Defend th but not filed WS.

¶16

(oA.No.s8l2022)

¶17

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.12.

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶19

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶20

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶21

Defendants counser fired vakarath but did not fire written statement. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.12. 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 Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶22

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

¶23

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the

¶24

Applicant Bank a tota I sum 13,81,633.99ps (Rupees One Crore Thirteen La nd Six hundred Thirty fi*

¶25

¶26

(oA.No.s8/2022)

¶27

three and paise Ninety nine only) with further interest @

¶28

L2.75o/o p.afrom date of filing of OA till realization.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of )an,2024)

¶35

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

2 g ,::l 2$21

¶37

TRUE COPY, nt.s.f^^-ft<6^ A""t R"gotrrr-I?'O'^- DFI-I, i!.vai::tA 4ID.

¶38

Indian Overseas Bank, v. M/S. Anusha Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank, v. M/S. Anusha Industries

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

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. D.J. Mining Equipment

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Krishna Plywood

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Maruthi Agencies