Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/S Tribal Mantra India Private Limited

DRT17 Feb 2025OA/243/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding sum with interest and costs, permitting attachment of property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.38,93,982.21 with interest @11% p.a.; bank entitled to attach petition schedule property and proceed against defendants for realization.

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/S Tribal Mantra India Private… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (HonS,), IY.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO,243 OF 2022

¶3

M/s. IDBI Bank Limited Kondapur Branch Serilingam^pa lli Ma ndal Ranga Reddy Dist. Rep. by its PoA.

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s. Tribal Mantra India Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr. Suresh Ramavath Regd. Office, Plot No.6/2 & 6/3 HUDA Tech no Enclave, Phase-II Hi-Tech City, Near l4ax Cure Hospital Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081.

¶6

Mr. Suresh Ramavath S/o Sri Ramavath Harila^I Aged 37 years, A-Gate 1011, My Home Jewel lvl iyapur, H^ydera ba d^- 500049.

¶7

I\4 rs. Leekavathi Ramavath Wo^{Sri RamavathHarilal} Aged 56^years, Plot No.185 East Part, Sharadha Nagar Va nastha lipuram Opp: Na ndi Model Schooi Hydera bad, Tela nga na- 500070.

¶8

...... Defendants.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : 14r. Trivikram Chitturu. Counsel for the Defendants :^{Mr. D. Raghavulu.} rlss -, '^lr 1'-r,t-

oA.24312022

:: (LLLLB^::

The Applicant^{Bankfiled the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery} of Debts & Bankruptcy^{Act, 1993 for recoveryof a sum of} Rs.38,93,982.21Ps from^{defendantsI to 3 jointly and severally} with future interest @10.8090^{per annumwith monthlyrests} from the date of^{Applicationtill the date of realisationalong} with costs.

¶14

The averments of^{applicant bank briefly are that 1"t defendant} represented by 2nd defendant^{availed termloan and cash credit} facilities to a tune of^{Rs.50 lakhs on 22.02'2077.Defendants2} and 3 stood as^{guarantors. Defendantsexecuted all necessary} loan documents. The cash^{credit facility has been renewed on} 29.06.2018. Defendants^{failed to repay the loan. Accordingly,} loan account has been classified^{as NPA on 23.02.2020,} followed by demand notice dated^{03 01 2021. sincethe} defendants failed to^{liquidatethe liability, the present OA is} filed.

¶15

Defendants filed written statement^{denyingthe avermentsand} the OA clalm in toto citing^{violation of RBI normsin classifying} loan account as NPA merely on^{technical grounds and} deprivation COVID.19^{Pandemic concessionsmeantfor MSMES.} The reason^given for classification of^{loan accountas NPAwas} that the funds sanctioned^{were not utilised for the purpose for} which they were sanctioned.^{Defendantsinformedthe applicant} bank that the business^{model for which loanwas secured had} to be wound up due to GST^{and higher rentals.However, the} loan was routed for bakery business^{ln fact, therewasno} delay or lapse in^paying the^{instalmentsHen^cedeclarationof} Y,f

¶16

oA,24312022

¶17

¶18

loan account as NPA on mere technicalities violates the norms prescribed by RBI vide circular dated 01.11.2021. Further, applicant bank has not given due credit to the loan instalments made through Electronic Clearing System and this aspect has been taken up with the applicant bank vide letters dated 09.06.2020 and 26.06.2020. The OA is filed without any notice hurriedly to harass the defendant.

¶19

as Applicant Bank examined Jangam Prasad Raja, l4anager, AW-1 and marked 12 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.12.

¶20

Defendants examined Suresh Ramavath, Defendant No.2 as DW.1 but not marked any documents.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank. whereas learned counsel for the defendants^prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for applicant bank^submits defendants 1 being the borrower and defendant Nos. 2 and³ being the^guarantors failed to repay the loan amount.^The defendants have not^placed any^{material evidence in supportof} their allegations raised in the written statement.^Therefore, defendants' pleadings on those counts are not^worth considering in the absence of supporting material. Since^the availment of loan and subsequent default are not^under dlspute, learned counsel^prayed for allowing the OA claim^as prayed for, fW^.* L,"<t''

¶23

oA.24312022

¶24

¶25

The^point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶26

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the OA claim against^the Defendants 1 to^{j as} PraYed^for?

¶27

The main contention of the^{defendantsis that classificationof} loan account as^NPA on^{the grounds of diversionof fundsto} another business is contrary^{to the RBI guidelinesdated} O1.fi.2021. However,^{defendantsdld not choose to place on} record a copy of relevant^{circular to prove their contention of} alleged vlolation of^{RBI guidelinesdated 01.11.2021. Suchis} the situation, the^{said contentionneedsno consideration As} regards the contention that^{defendantshave taken up the issue} of non-encashment of^{EMISthrough ElectronicClearing System} vide letters dated 09.06.2020^{and 26.06.2020,they have not} chosen to^place on record^{copies of saidcorrespondencein} support of thelr contentlon.^{Nor did they chose to cross examine} AW.1 to prove their^point of^{alleged non-encashment. Hence} this aspect needs no^{consideration.Underthese factsand} clrcumstances, the OA^claim of^{the applicant bankcoupled with} the recitals in Exs.A.1 to^{A.12 remainunchallengedand} unrebutted. Accordingly, I^hold that^{the defendants 1 to 3 are} jointly and severally liable to pay the OA clalm to the applicant bank along with future^{interest and costs. This Tribunalpassed} a conditional order dated^{1a.09.2024 in 1A.2027 0t 2024filed} by the applicant bank^{seeking direction to the2nd defendantto} deposit the outstanding amount^{of Rs.38,93,982 21Psfailing} which to attach the^{petition scheduleproperty in lieu thereof.} The said order was not served^{on the ground that 2nd defendant}

¶28

oA.24312022

¶29

handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd defendant. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant has not filed compliance any report.

¶30

In the result, the present Original Application No.243/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) the defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.38,93,982.21Ps along with interest @11olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the subject petition property attached by this Tribunal on 18.09.2024 in IA. 2027 of 2024 for recovery of its debt;

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned^and upload in Web Portal.

¶38

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4rh day of November, 2024)

¶39

ffir'rr-e

¶40

PRESIDING OFFICER

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/S Tribal Mantra India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/S Tribal Mantra India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Golkonda Venugopal

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S K.K.R Transport

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Maragoni Narsihma

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Budigapaka Sekhar

Sri Narender Reddy Soma versus Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Uppari Narsing Rao