Allowed

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

DRT28 May 2025OA/154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 1.15 crore along with interest from four respondents after finding the bank's evidence and liability proof sufficient despite the defendants' claim of high interest rates.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,15,12,391.96ps (less Rs. 26.00 lakhs recovered) with interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Nandita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY'2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.154 of 2O23

¶5

(Modified the order vide RA,No.LO/2024)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Canara Bank

¶8

(Formerly Syndicate Bank)

¶9

N.S. Road branch, D.No.5-3-1062, Veerji towers, Osmangunj area, Opp Hotel Jewel Residency, Near Old PS Begum bazar,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 001. TS

¶11

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶12

Applica nt

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

M/s. Nandita Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Rep by its managing director Smt TallamSridevi, having its regd office And administrative office at

¶15

H.No.B-5-57/5, Devi Nilayam, Near Vicinity hospital, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011, TS

¶16

And the factory located at Sy.No.224/t and 229/1, Moglicharla village, Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal.

¶17

SmtTallamSridevi, W/o late TallamVenkateshwara Ra Director of M/s. Nandita Ente Pvt ltd, aged 54 years, occ: busin R/o F.No.505, Silver Springs, Jayabheri park, Opp: Jayabheri Water tank, Kompally, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶18

*
'i + mYms
e .,i, -Q-:Y
R&;xtqry

¶19

(oA.No.1sa/2023)

¶20

Sri Tallam Kumar Kaushik

¶21

S/o late TallamVenkateswara Rao, Aged 35 years, occ: business, H.No.8-5-57/5, Devi Nilayam, Near Vicinity hospital, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011, TS

¶22

4, SmtTallamNandita D/o Late ta lla mVe'n kateswara Rao, aged major, occ: business, R/o F.No.505, Silver Springs, Jayabheri park, Opp: Jayabheri Water tank, Kompally, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the Parties:

¶24

For the Applicant Sri AVSS Prasad

¶25

For the Defendant No.1 to 4

¶26

Sri C. Sreedhar

¶27

ORDER

¶28

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for

¶29

recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,15,12,397.96ps (Rupees One

¶30

crore Fifteen Lakhs Twetve Thousand Three Hundred Ninety

¶31

Seven and paise Nanety six only) i.e.,

¶32

a) A sum of Rs.97,06,301.76ps under SOD limit with interest @ 12.650/o p.a with monthly rests from 23.03.2022 till the date of realization;

¶33

b) A sum. of der GECL laonwith interest @

¶34

9 .4o/o p.a 01.04.2023 tiil the date of rea lizatio * N 1[ o. fut"-

¶35

(oA. No.1sal2023)

¶36

c) A sum of Rs.5,35,522.62ps under RFITL loanwith interest @

¶37

15.8olo p.a with monthly rests from 0t.04.2023 tiil the date of realization;

¶38

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule "A (item No.I to VIII ) & 8,, to oA.

¶39

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a company and defendant no.2 was its director avaired roan of Rs.60.00 rakhs and offered schedure detailed properties. Thereafter the roan rimits were enhanced in 2015 and the defendant no.1 avaired soD rimit of Rs.170.00 rakhs against the hypothecation of stocks in trade and book debts and mortgage of immovable properties as mentioned in the schedule to oA which was succeeded by defendants no.2 to 4 0n demise of sri TallamVenkateswara Rao vide letter dated 13.05.2015. The defendant no.1 arong with rate Sri ra[amVenkateshwara Rao and defendant no.2 executed composite hypothecation agreement, comprehensive pre-post shipment agreement and guarantee agreement dated 16.05.2015. The properties mortgaged by late Sri TallamVenkateswara Rao avaired by defendant no.1 are secured by deposit of title deeds on 26.12.20t3. Due to Covid_19 situation, the :n{ant no.1 dvi 'a GECL loan of Rs.18.00 lakhs on 03.09.2020 {:l .: -4 Ihe" loan d6cu ;' \ .j executed by defendants agreement 03.09.2020 in favour of Applicant r\r'f i_:'¹ '1.-.-,-:

¶40

(oA.No.1s4l2023)

¶41

Bank. The defendant no.1 and 2 continued the roan operations in above three accounts, whereafter Sri T. Venkateshwara Rao, who is Managing director and guarantor for the roan avaired by defendant No.1 Company demised and his liability was succeeded by his widow, son and daughter i.e., defendants No.2 to 4 being the regar heirs as successors of immovable properties.

¶42

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. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the appricant bank issued notices but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar claim of Applicant against defendants isRs.1,15,12,397.96ps (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Seven and paise Ninety six only)with interest @ 72.650/o p.a; @ 9.4o/o p.a and @15.80 o/o p.d respectively with monthly rests from 23.03.2022 and 0L.4.2023 till realization. Hence the OA.

¶43

2' The Defendants No.1 to 4 fired written statement admitting that the defendant no.1 is acompany and defendant no.2 was its director. They admit Eit;,the'deJendants availed SOD limit of Rs.170.OO ,4 'bt'the la khs aqfrin trypothecflt\n of stocks in trade and book debts and m{;: n10f ' T.T"yl!,"^{31{"u'"r as mentioned in the schedute} ,.rll n.^),$ E, \€

¶44

(oA.No.1s4l2023)

¶45

to oA which was succeeded by defendants no.2 to 4 on demise of sri TallamVenkateswara Rao. It was contended that the Applicant bank charged higher rate of interest which is against the directives of RBI guidelines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶46

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by SriM. Venkatesh, Manager as AW.1 and through her marked 30 documents as Ex,A.1 to A.30. Defendants no.2 & 3 examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 but no documents produced by them.

¶47

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶48

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶49

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶50

ii) To what relief ?

¶51

Point No.i):

¶52

F, AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant have clearly deposed the riabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A. 1 to A.3o exhibited_D+"4he-Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants. The Appl bank filed a part satisfaction memo stating that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was recovered in view of the tioni t braeis ffisseo"'i n No.68/2024 under SARFAESI Act.

¶53

¶54

(OA. No.15al2023 )

¶55

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants, Even though defendants no.2&3 examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2, their evidence is in noway helpful to them. The defendants No.2& 3 having taken the plea that the applicant bank not followed the RBI guidelines and charged high rate of interest, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents executed by the bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants No. 2 &3 very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct, But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants No.2 & 3 ls 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.

¶56

Point No.ii)

¶57

B. In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶58

The Defendants No.1 to 4 are joinUy and severally liable to pay the Applicant Bank-a-Iotalgrrm of Rs.1,15,12,391 .96ps (Rupees One Crore Lakhs lve.Jhousand Three Hundred Ninety Seven qio"ir" Nin€ty ri*'Sr[y i.".,

¶59

(oA. No.1s4l2023)

¶60

LESS A SUM OF RS.26.OO LAKHS recoveredas per conditional

¶61

orders passed in SA.68/2024.

¶62

a) A sum of Rs.97,06,301.76ps under SOD limit with interest @ 12.650/o p.a from 23.03.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶63

b) A sum of Rs.12,70,573.58ps under GECL loanwith interest @ 9.4o/o p.a rests from 0t.04.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶64

c) A sum of Rs.5,35,522.62ps under RFITL loanwith interest G)

¶65

15.8% p.a from 01.04.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶66

¶67

i) The applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties as described in schedules "A (item no.Ito VIII)and B,,to OA.

¶68

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶69

iii) Consequent to this order, the pending IA,s if any stand disposed.

¶70

iv) The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶71

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

¶72

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶73

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶74

in the open

¶75

sdlN'f, (G. GOPICHAND) D I N G oFFr cE R i,i:HffiREsr

¶76

ORI-I, lJ !?ERA ts.rti.'

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Canara Bank versus Deric Vincent

Uco Bank versus Rajeev Saxena

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sushma Malik

Sahilpreet Singh versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Mr. Niranjan Mohammad

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Onkar Nath