Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/s. Gokul Brick Industry

DRT5 Dec 2024OA/92/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Indian Bank for recovery of a loan of Rs.53,35,207 along with interest from the borrower and guarantors, directing joint and several liability and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.53,35,207 with interest; liberty to proceed against mortgaged properties and persons/properties of respondents; recovery certificate issued.

Indian Bank versus M/s. Gokul Brick Industry — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE sTH DAY OF DECEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.92 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Bank, Himayathnagar branch, Hyderabad - 500 029 Represented by its Asst Gen Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Gokul Brick Industry, Represented by its Proprietor Sri D. Srinivasulu, sy.No.111 And 112, PeddaAmberPet

¶10

Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, RR district - 70.

¶11

Mr. D. Srinivasulu, S/o Narsimha, male, aged 51 Years, R/o H.No.3-24, Narketpally^village, Na rketpallymanda l,

¶12

Nalgonda dist - 508 254.

¶13

Mr. T. Narsimha, s/o Buchaiah, aged about⁵¹ Yrs, R/o H.no.2-84lA, NarketPallY Village, narketpallymandal, Nalgonda dist - 508 254.

¶14

Smt D. Padma, w/o D. Srinivasulu, aged⁴⁷ Yrs, R/o H. No.3-24, NarketPallY Village, narketpallymandal, Nalgonda dist - 508 254.

¶15

Sri B. Ramakrishna, s/o B. Gopal, male, aged⁴⁰ Yrs,

¶16

6*h'"<br>i: ! $ 5 oEcxrTt
iti.i .. .11
oQa;rnt#

¶17

(OA.No.92/2024)

¶18

R/o H.No.7-26lA High School road, Na rketpa llyVillage, narketpallymandal, Nalgonda dist - 508 254.

¶19

Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the Parties:

¶21

For the Applicant

¶22

For the Defendants

¶23

Sri B. Damodar Reddy Expa rte

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.53,35,207l- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Five thousand Two hundred and Seven only) with interest @ 13.70% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule "A & B" to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed cash credit of Rs.B.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.90.00 lakhs. The defendants No.2 to 5 stood as guarantors and executed limit pronote, hypothecation agreement, term loan agreement, deed ol ndants2to5on 26.08.201s. oerenaants,{,$! ?ffi,"a le mortgage by ;:,N ule "A &8" deposit of original title ,deeds 0,.: r&Tgffi "t I properties to OA. After availing the loan the defendants

¶27

(oA.No.92l2024)

¶28

failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 21.09,2019 and issued legal notice dated 29.01.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding.^Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants No.7,2,4 & 5 called absent and set exparte^on 09.08.2024 and defendant no.3 on 12.11.2024.

¶30

Sri N. Suresh Yadav, Asst. Manager of the^{Applicant Bank examined} herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents,^{which are} marked as Ex.A.1to A.21.

¶31

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

¶32

The^point that arise^{for consideration is whether the ApplicantBank is} entitled for the claim made in the^{OA against the Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶33

counsel for defendants^{remaindexparte.To substantiate the caseof} the Applicant Bank, AW.1,^{official of the ApplicantBank was} examined and he exhibiteff{ffin5$-$qents^{as Ex.A1to A'21'In} view of the above, r fu6 i n.,ff#ff i " Ap;t<sup>Bank has established : ;'"' Eg

¶34

their claim made in{tne o1Tt1ff}ffi"^{Ddf4dantsand hence the} Applicant Bank is ".ti..j']l..{..Er*cover ii '"^{tny$" madein the oA with} gx,h..,

¶35

rutu re i nterest and .or&;f...ry

¶36

(oA.No.9212024)

¶37

B. In the result, the^present OA is allowed^{with costs, as under:} The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^{pay to the} Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.53,35,2O7 l-^{(Rupees Fifty Three} Lakhs Thirty Five thousand Two hundred^{and Seven only) with} interest @ 13.70olo^p.a from date^{of applicationtill the date of} realization.

¶38

The Applicant bank^{is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged} properties as described in schedule^"A &8"^{to OA towards} realization of the debt due.

¶39

10, The Applicant Bank is also^{entitled to proceed againstthe person} and^properties of^{defendantsNo.2 to 5 and propertiesof defendant} no.1 firm towards^{realization of the debt due.}

¶40

The Applicant^{Bankis entitledto the costs of the OA'}

¶41

L2, The Applicant shall^{file a cost memo within two weeks from the date} of receipt of order.

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate^accordingly'

¶43

t4. of the order to the parties concerned.
i:"j" ,r::"#i * her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on
s 5 0EC?ur 3 sdl_
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
d";fr"*""
'&ar.dr@'
41nt.l. ^{€rirn', IIY?ERABAO'

Indian Bank v. M/s. Gokul Brick Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/s. Gokul Brick Industry

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. Manda Srinivas

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vajra Parboiled Rice Mills Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Ganta Chandra Mohan

Canara Bank versus M/S. Nandita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Shaik Khaja Pasha

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India