Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Sri Balaji Digitals

DRT10 Jul 2024OA/719/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined an ex-parte Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a loan of Rs. 36,49,450.49. It held that the defendants were liable and allowed the application, directing recovery from assets and properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.36,49,450.49 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties; costs awarded.

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Balaji Digitals — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE loth DAY OF ]ULY, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), lvl.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 719 OF 2022

¶4

CANARA BANK., lvliyapur Bra nch, Ground Floor, Flat No.141, Sri Balaji Towers, Opp: lvletro Pillar No.4605, M iyapur - 500049. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶5

.....Applica nt.

¶6

Versus
1.lY/s.Sri Balaji Diqitals., RepbyitsProprietor SriMaddela Ayyavaraiah, S/o.Sri14.Muneiah,
R/o.H.No.1-59/118,New Colony,
lvliyapur X Road, Hyderabad-500049.

¶7

Sri.Maddela Ayyava ra iah, S/o. Sri. M. M u neia h, Age about 33 Years, Occ: Business, R/o,H.No. 1-62l3/A, 3'o Floor, New Colony, 14 iya pu r, Hydera bad - 500049.

¶8

. .. Defenda nts

¶9

: M/s.A.V. S.S. Prasad Counsel for the Applicant Defendants : ExParte 4Yz.-.-u (/" ie^uI

¶10

oa,No.719/2022

¶11

:: ORDER::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA^for the^{recovery a total} sum of Rs.36,49,450.49ps under MSME^Loan A/c. No.622176800059 from the defendants^jointlyand severally with future interest @13.30o/o^p.a. from^20.07.2022 till the date of realization along with^costs and^{in defaultfor} sale of hypothecated assets.

¶13

Summons served on D1 and 2 through^{paper publication.They} were set ex-parte on 22.03.2024 as called absent and^no representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined K.Shiva Kumar, Officer, as AW-1 and marked 05 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.05.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may^be passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶16

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶17

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶18

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶19

ffi'''-t

¶20

oA.NO.7L9l2O22

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.7L9/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.36,49,450.49ps under MSME Loan A/c.No.622L769000S9 with future interest @11,55o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶24

iii) the applicant bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶25

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶26

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th Day of Juty, 2024).

¶29

ff.)Y1\ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/S Sri Balaji Digitals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Sri Balaji Digitals

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

Jeevankiran versus South Indian Bank

Ms Puja Mobiles versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Nayana Enterprises

Gurpreet Kaur versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Prince Bangle Supplier

Union Bank of India versus M/S Cytomol Labs