Allowed

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Sunil Kumar Agarwal

DRT24 Feb 2025OA/197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd for recovery of Rs. 2,86,27,906.70. The Tribunal held that the bank established its claim after the defendants failed to file a statement or substantiate their defense, awarding the principal amount with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,86,27,906.70 with interest at 15.15% p.a. from 01.12.2022; recovery certificate issued.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sunil… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 24rH DAy OF FEBRUARYt 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER OA.No.197 ot 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd, Branch at 15-2-696, first floor, Siddamber Bazar, KishanGunj, Hyderabad - 500 012. Represented by its authorized person And Power of Attorney holder

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, s/o Mr. Ramanandji Agarwal, male, aged 53 years, Proprietor M/s. PrabhudayalRamanand& Co., D.No.15-9-26 & 27, Mukthiyargunj, Hyderabad, TS.

¶8

SmtMeenu Agarwal, W/o Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Female, aged 52 years, R/o 15-1-564, Siddamber bazar, Begum Bazar, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 012.

¶9

-dN, 3. Ms. Aishwarya Agarwal, .,.:,, d/o Sunil Kumar Agarwalr. 'A !jTi:oi}:i^{pliff;q,6ni"? 4 F{B ?{tn} House, Golconda, \Yi. ,,r Hyderabad - 500 OOB. \'n^t" S endants Qa;';q& Counsel for the Parties:Parties:

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:Parties: For the Applicant Sri K. Raghavendra Rao For the DeFendant No.1 Sri K. Vijay Kumar Defendants 2 & 3 Sri K. Suresh

¶11

(OA. No.197l2023 )

¶12

ORDER

¶13

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,g6,27,go6.7ops (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Six lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Six and paise Seventy only) with interest @ 15.15olo p.a from 07.12.2022 flr the date of rearization and in defaurt for sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶14

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1is the sole proprietor of M/s. PrabhudayalRamanadji Agarwar avaired cash credit roan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- by sanction letter dated 04.05.2020. Defendants 1,2 and 3 signed and executed necessary letters, documents and demand promissory note by defendant no.1 in favour of Appricant bank on 04.05.2020. The defendants mortgaged the schedure property and hypothecated the assets as mentioned in the schedule to oA. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the accoqnt as NpA on 2g.09.2021 and

¶15

issued dated 04.10.2021. Inspite of severa I req u efendants did not clear the outstanding. '2 f&s,xE#

¶16

(oA. No.19712023)

¶17

counsel for defendants filed vakalaths but failed to file written Statement.

¶18

Sri G. SenthilKumar, Dy. Vice president of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.64.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

6' The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the oA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶21

counsel for defendants filed vakaraths but not fired written statement. 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 4.64. In view of the above, I hord that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶22

B. In the resent OA is allowed with costs, as under: intly and severally liable to pay to the

¶23

,* lica nt m of Rs.2,86,27,8O6.7Ops (Rupees Two akhs Twenty Seven Thousand Eight

¶24

(oA. No.19712023)

¶25

Hundred Six and paise Seventy only) with interest @ 15.15olo p.a from 01.t2.2022 till the date of realization .

¶26

The Applicant bank is entitred to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶27

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶32

(Dictated to the P,A., transc.bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thls the 24rh day of Feb, 2025)

¶33

;,rf-R-"
i'J ?( rEBil6

¶34

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

ikfr"

¶36

ORf'i, HYn!'a!1,aAa'

¶37

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Sunil Kumar Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Sunil Kumar Agarwal

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

kankanala Swarupa and others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

shaik awaiz versus the Gayatri Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Akshara Industries

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Momin Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Dayakar Transport

Sri Gugloth Ramesh versus Bank of Baroda