Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S S S Marketing

DRT23 Sept 2024OA/765/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of dues, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim against a firm and its partners. The court held the respondents jointly and severally liable for term loan, OD, and DPN amounts along with future interest and costs, based on unchallenged documents as respondents did not appear to file a written statement, adduce evidence, or argue. The court also

What did the court decide?

Respondents held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 60,94,676.77 with future interest; recovery from OA schedule properties and personalties allowed; costs awarded to applicant.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S S S Marketing — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE^{23RDDAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB' (HONS.),M'A.} PRESIDlNG OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO. 765 OF 2023}

¶4

Karnataka Bank^Ltd. Dilsukhnagar Branch t6-tt-740/8 7/A CMR Soni^Arcade Near Metro Pillar^No.A-1519 Gaddi Annaram,^Dilsukhnagar Hydera bad^- 50⁰ 060.

¶5

... .Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lY/s. S.S. Marketing Plot No.22, B.K.^{Reddy Nagar} Hyderabad Telangana State-500068.

¶8

Sri P. Narasimha^Murthy S/o P. Samba^14urthy Aged about 51 Years Occ: Business H. No. 12- 1-320-23-¹ Plot No.23, Road No.4 Anand Nagar Colony Bandlaguda, Nagole H^ydera bad^- 500⁰ 68.

¶9

Sri Narayanam Sai Krishna S/o N. Bhaskar Sharma Aged about 44 Years Occ: Business H. No. 12- 1-320-23-¹ Plot No. 23, Road No.4 Anand Nagar Colony Bandlaguda, Nagole H ydera bad - 5000 68.

... Defendants.

N,E

oA.76s/2023

Counsel for Applica nt Counsel for Defenda nts

¶14

: lvlr. N. Rama Rao. : No representation.

¶15

:: ORDER ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for recovery of a total sum of Rs.60,94 ,676.77ps (Rs.5,5S,268/- towards Term Loan account with future interest @9.250lo p.a., Rs.423f,g22/_ towards O.D. account with future interest @16.35o/o p.a. and Rs.73,07,486.77Ps towards DpN Loan account with future interest @16.35o/o p.a-) jointly and severally from the defendants 1 to 3 from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule properties.

¶17

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that 1"t defendant is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. Defendants availed a loan for their working capjtal requirements to a tune of Rs.14 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 03.07.2020. The loan is secured by way of hypothecation of movable assets of 1st defendant and mortgage of immovable property belonging to 3rd defendant. Defendants executed all necessary loan documents. The loan is repayable with interest @8.960lo^p.a. Defendants renewed the OD facility of Rs.4O lakhs vide sanction letter dated 17.06.2021. The OD is secured by way of hypothecation of movable assets and immovable properties of partner of 1st defendant firm. The OD is repayable with an interest @13.01olo p.a. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors to the OD account. Defendants also availed Demand Promissory Note Loan of Rs.30 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 17.06.2021. This loan is repayable in 34 EMIS with interest ,M,Y

l)./ '"1>"

oA.76s12023

@13.01o/o^{p.a. and is secured by the movable propertiesand} properties of partner of 1st^{defendant firm Defendants 2 and 3} stood as^{guarantorsto the loan accountof Rs'30 lakhs'The} loan accounts of the^{defendants became out of order for not} properly maintaining the accounts.^{The loan accountsbecame} NPA on 30.09.2021.^{Applicantbank demandedthe defendants} several times to regularise the^{loan accountsby issuing recall} notice dated 04.10.2021.^{The securitisationproceedings} challenged by the defendants^{vide 5A.272/2022 are pending} adjudication beFore^{this Tribuna l.}

¶22

Though defendants entered^{appearance through their counsel} T. Sridhar, they did not choose^{to file writtenstatement. Hence} thelr right of filing written^{statementforfeited vide docket order} dated 30.04.2024.

¶23

The Appllca nt Bank examined V. Pavan Kumar Reddy, Branch Manager as AW-1 and marked 51 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.51.

¶24

Defendants'right of add ucing evidence has been forfeited for non-representation vide docket order dated 30.08.2024.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant^prayed that^orders may be passed based on records. Defendants' right^of advancing arguments forfeited vide docket order^dated 06.09.2024. Perused the material^placed on^record.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:-

ffr''<br>

oa.76s/2021

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the OA claim against the Defendants 1to 3 and OA schedule properties?

¶31

As stated supra, defendants did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.t to A.51 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that Defendants 1 to 3 are joinflyand severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.76512023 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.60,94,676.77Ps (Rs.5,55,268/- towards Term Loan account, Rs.42,37,922/- towards O.D. account and Rs.73,07 ,486.77Ps towards DPN Loan account along with interest @9.50o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is eY*'

¶35

oA.76512023

¶36

entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its d ues;

¶37

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

¶38

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

t2. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on Web Portal.

¶42

(Dic'tated to lhe ,,;teno, .signed und prorutunc.ed by me in the open court on this the 23,,t day of September, 2021.1.

¶43

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S S S Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S S S Marketing

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Pallavi Mini Rice Mill

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Kiran Sahu and Smt Kiran Shah

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank versus Shri Shivendra Mohan

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Gonuduntla Vishalakshmi

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Food Products

Bank of India versus M/S Hotel Swagath Grand