Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S. Tpr Enterprises

DRT24 Jun 2024OA/62/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application filed by Indian Bank for recovery of Rs.47,15,923/-including interest from M/s TPR Enterprises. Court found defendant's denial untenable and ordered recovery of principal, interest, and costs with power to realize debt from hypothecated movables.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay Applicant Bank Rs.47,15,923/- plus interest; proceed against hypothecated movables; realize debt from person and properties; applicant to recover costs.

Indian Bank versus M/S. Tpr Enterprises — Arbitration | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24rH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.62 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Bank, Himayathnagar branch, Hyderabad, Telangana. Represented by its Asst. Gen Manager

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. TPR Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, Smt Kotte Padmavathi, W/o Sri K. Ravi Kumar, aged about 42 years, R/o block no.7, Flat no.7236, II floor, H.No.8-4-368/A3 & A4, JanapriyaMetropolis, Mothinagar Erragadda, Medchal, Hyderabad - 500 018,

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

For the Defendant (\Ks ri* -L 2q JUlt 1. for The Applicant Bank filed the recovery of a total sum of Forty Seven

¶14

(oA.No.6212023)

¶15

Lakhs Fifteen thousand Nine hundred and Twenty three only)

¶16

i.€.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.33,08,915/- in term loan account with interest @ 8.55o/o p.a with monthly rests till the date of realization;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.2,82,534/- in FITL account with interest @^{7.85% p.a} with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶19

c) A sum of Rs.3,26,839/- in GECLS Covid account with^interest @ 9.25o/o^p.a with monthly rests^{from date of OA till the date of} realization;

¶20

d) A sum of Rs.7,97,635/-^{in Ind-GECLS1.0 Extensionaccount with} interest @ 9.25olo^p.a with^{monthly rests from date of OA till the} date of realization;

¶21

and in default for sale of^{hypothecated movablesas described in} the schedule to OA.

¶22

As^per the averments^{in the application, the Applicant} Bank states that the^{defendant availedcredit facilitiesfor purchase of} 18 MT Bulk LPG Tank^{truck under InDhanvahanaScheme'The} defendant availed term^{loan of Rs.30,97,595/-,Bank guaranteelimit} of Rs.4.00 lakhs^{and cleanoD limit of Rs.1.00 lakh. The defendant} executed the demand^{promissorynote, disposalof proceeds letter,}

¶23

(oA.No.62l2023)

¶24

availed working capital term loan of Rs.3,50,000/- vide sanction letter dated 30.09.2020 and executed demand promissory note, term loan agreement and agreement of hypothecation of movables dated 01.10.2020.

¶25

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facility and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on t3.06.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued legal notice dated 10.09.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is

¶26

Rs.47,15,923/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Fifteen thousand Nine hundred and Twenty three only) with future interest @ 8.55o/o, 7.85o/o, and 9.25o/op.a with monthly rests from^{date of OA} till date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶27

The Defendant filed written statement denied all the^allegations made by Applicant bank. The defendant denied the^{execution of} documents and deposit of title deeds with the^{Applicant bank. It is} contended that the OA is barred by limitation and^{is liable to be} dismissed. It is alleged that bank obtained signatures o n va rio u s^{pa pers} w itn o ulrt ivi^{n g} o^ppo ri,:filtly.bt\So^{throughwith the} contents made thereundbr. Hence prayed [o dismiss the OA. : q

¶28

¶29

(oA.No.62l2023)

¶30

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by SriNakkala Suresh Yadav, Assistant Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 31 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.31. Defendant examined herself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶31

I have perused the documents^placed on record.

¶32

Now, the^points that arise^{for consideration are:}

¶33

i) Whether the Applicant^{Bank has proved its claim as madein} OA against the defendant^?

¶34

ii) To what relief^?

¶35

Point No.i):

¶36

AW.1 who was examined^{on behalf of the Applicant have clearly} deposed the liability^{of the defendant.ExhibitsA'1 to A'31} exhibitedbytheApplicantbankclearlyestablishtheliabilityof the defendants.

¶37

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendant.^{Even though} defendant examined herself as DW.1,^{her evidenceis in noway} helpful to her.^The taken the^plea that^the applicant bank did ffi-$ru.:erines,^{sisned on} certain documents lnit'.nu, ,ii^{p*r"'it'to *u, barredbv} limitation, failed^to

¶38

(OA.No.62l2023)

¶39

Moreover, a perusal of the documents executed by the bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. The defendant very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant is liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

B, In the result, the^present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶42

The Defendant is liable to^pay Applicant^Bank a total sum^of Rs.47,L5,923/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs^{Fifteen thousand} Nine hundred and Twenty three only) i.e.,

¶43

a) A sum of Rs.33,08,915/-ⁱⁿ term^{loan accountwith interest@} 8.55%^p.a till the date of realization;

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.2,82,534/; ccount with interest @ 7.85o/o p.afrom date of I

¶45

c) A sum of Rs.3,y'6,839/- in GECLS Covid account^{with interest@} 9.25o/oo.uuoi oate or%n till^{the date of realization;}

¶46

(oA.No.62l2023)

¶47

d) A sum of Rs,7,97,635/- in Ind-GECLS 1.0 Extension account with interest @ 9.25olo p.afrom date of OA till the date of realization;

¶48

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA.

¶49

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

¶50

t2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶51

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

¶52

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of lune, 2024)

¶55

sd/-

¶56

?t{
' li-
6

¶57

(G. coPrCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
dvv:n
6{4'a,'u
oar.,, aiiEiliia.

Indian Bank v. M/S. Tpr Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S. Tpr Enterprises

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Svs Upvc Windows and Doors

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Pooja Samagri

Union Bank of India versus M/S Neeraja Constructions

State Bank of India versus Sri Myana Bhanu Vijayanand

State Bank of India versus M/S. Venkata Laxmi Agro Industries

Sri Kishore Kumar Chindaliya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited