Allowed

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

DRT19 Jun 2024OA/65/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TheDebtsRecoveryTribunal atHyderabad allowed the originatingapplication filed by Bank of India for recovery of loan dues. The Tribunal held that the bank has established its claim based on documentary evidence examined during the hearing and awarded recovery against the borrowers and guarantor.

What did the court decide?

Declared directors jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 43,68,791.50 plus interest at 11.50% p.a. and costs; directed sale of mortgaged property; issued recovery certificate.

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Pooja… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.65 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of India, Sultan Bazar Branch, D.No.4-3-329, sultan Bazar, P.B. No.545, bank street, Hyderabad - 500 001. Represented by its Constituted Attorney

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Sai BalajiPooja^Samagri, Represented by its Proprietor Sri G. Mahesh,^{MIG -281 &282,} Shop no.1 & 2,^{KPHB colonY,} Kukatpally, Hyderabad -^72.

¶10

Sri Gourisetty Mahesh, s/o G. Vaikuntam, aged⁴⁹ Years, occ: business,^{R/o MIG} -^{2BL &282,} flat no.104, Mahavir towers,^{road no.4,} KPHB colony, KukatPallY, Hyderabad - 72.

¶11

ffi<br>tfur, 49 '^
nott tuH mt :
Ar,.#
Sri M.V. Ramana

¶12

SmtGourisettySaritha, w/o Sri G. Mahesh, aged⁴³ occ: business,^{R/o MIG} -²⁸ flat no.104, Mahavir towers, KPHB colony, KukatPallY, Hyderabad - 72.

¶13

Counsel for the^{Pa rties:}

For the Applicant

Exparte

For the Defendants

(oA.No.6sl2024)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.43,68,791.50ps (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Sixty Eight thousand Seven Hundred Ninety One and Paise Fifty only) with interest @ 11.50o/o p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest from the date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

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 availed cash credit of R.60.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.35 lakhs for development of his Pooja Samagri business on 14.09.2018. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the loan availed by defendants 1 & 2. The defendant no.1 executed demand promissory note, bearer letter, installment letter, IFD-X hypothecation cum loan agreement etc. Defendant no.3 executed deed of guarantee dated 28.09.2018 and also created security over immovable property more fully described in the schedule to OA. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms or sanction, n""."#6'ri?-.qru.was constrained to classify the account at Ne{df o1.oad21ar#bs\ed demand notice ii., i .? .",'^-.r r^{- jl} 'l I .. \ : ,:'',// '.^{l</sup> .,.'- ;:'i1 i::.- 1. 7 .'.'71, ;il;.;'1,-i, "i i ) i; ,:, .'.::'-.-..' "*,_t.r-,,.-::z}

¶21

(oA.No.6sl202a)

¶22

dated 01.7.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the

¶23

defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 06.06.2024.

¶25

MrvangaBalu Sandeep, Officer of the Applicant Bank examined^himself as AW.l and exhibited relevant documents, which are^markedas Ex.A.1to A.21.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the^{Applicant Bank.}

¶27

The^point that arise for consideration^{is whetherthe Applicant Bank is} entitled for the claim made in the OA^{againstthe Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶28

Defendants called absent and set exparte.^To substantiate^{the case} of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of^{the Applicant Bank was} examined and he exhibited relevant documents^{as Ex.A1 to A.21.In} view of the above, I hold that the Applicant^{Bank has establishedtheir} claim made in the OA against the and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover ,n"ZfZ*tftn+E OA with future t .rl

¶29

interest and costs. .I

¶30

B. In the result, the^present OA wltd ct sts, ast \

¶31

The Defendants are^jointly and\ever lly^{liable to pay to} the Applicant .',,'.,r

¶32

Bank a total sum of Rs.43,68,791.50ps^(Rupees Forty Three

¶33

(oA.No.65/2024)

¶34

Lakhs Sixty Eight thousand Seven^{Hundred Ninety One and} Paise Fifty only) with interest @^{11.50o/o p.a from the dateof} application till the date of^realization;

¶35

The Applicant bank is^{entitled to proceedagainstthe mortgaged} property as described in schedule to OA towards^{realization of the debt} due.

¶36

The Applicant Bank^{is also entitled to proceedagainst the personand} properties of defendants No.2 & 3^{and propertiesof defendantno.1} firm towards realization^{of the debt due.}

¶37

The Applicant^{Bank is entitled to the costs of the oA.}

¶38

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

¶39

L4. Issue Recovery^{certificateaccordingly.}

¶40

Communicate a^{copy of the order to the parties concerned.}

¶41

bed by her, corrected,^{signed and pronounced by me in the open} )une'2024)

¶42

sdl - (G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

rb:N

¶44

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Similar cases

Sri Shiva Sai Industries versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. N.S. Vaishno Devi Developers India Private Limited.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Ram Constructions

Union Bank of India versus M/S Neeraja Constructions

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Myana Bhanu Vijayanand