Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/s. Suyati Impex Private Limited

DRT11 Feb 2025OA/272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA.No.272/2024, Karnataka Bank Ltd sought recovery of a loan sum of Rs.13,05,50,014.91 from five defendants, including a company and individual guarantors/heirs of the deceased promoter. The bank was ex-parte. The tribunal held the bank established its claim via documentary evidence and granted recovery along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.13,05,50,014.91 with future interest; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties and personal assets; costs awarded.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/s. Suyati Impex Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2c.25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.272 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Branch at 6-3-1090/8/3, G 1 to G4, Ground floor, Munavar chambers, Rajbhavan road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, TS. Rep by its GPA holder Sri Santhosh Kumar V,

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Suyatilmpex^private Limited, A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, Regd office At Flat no.302, MCH No.B-3-977/2, Creative sadan,^{yellareddyguda,} Hyderabad - 500 073. Represented by its Directors T. Vydehi and T.^{pavanCharitaAkhil}

¶9

Mrs. TelapoluVydehi, w/o Telapolu Ram Prasad, aged about 50 years, occ:business, R/ o 7 6-8-2-2, Bhavanipuram, Manavamandir Road, Kamakotinagar, Vijayawada, AP - 520 012.

¶10

Mr, TelapoluPavanCharitaAkhil, s/o Sri TelapoluRamprasad, aged about 28 years, occ:business, R/ o 7 6-8-2-2, Bhavanipuram, Manavamandir road, Kamakotinagar, Vijayawada, AP- 520 012.

¶11

Sri DhavalaMadhusudhana Rao, s/o Mr. Dhavala Rama Somayajulu,

¶12

loA.No.272l202a)

¶13

agecl about 5g years, occ: buslness, R/o H. No.36-99-37 / t5, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam - 530 008. A.p.

¶14

Sri TelapoluNihar, s/o T. Ram Prasad, aged about 24 yrs, occ: business, R/o 76-8-2-2, Bhavanipuram, Manavamandir road, Kamakotinagar, Vijayawada, Ap- 520 012.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the^parties:

¶17

For the Applicant

¶18

For the Defendants

¶19

Sri N. Rama Rao Ex pa rte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.13,O5,5O,014.91ps (Rupees Thirteen crores Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand fourteen and paise Ninety one only) i.e.,

¶22

a) A sum of Rs.1,11,88,574.82ps towards Term loan (GECL) with future interest @ 13.96% p.a from 0L.06.2024 till the date of realization;

¶23

b) A sum of Rs.3,52,858/- towards OD facility with future interest @ 16.10%^p.a from 76.06.2024 tiil the date of realization ;

¶24

c) A sum of Rs.66,06,853/- towards FITL with future interest @

¶25

L8.06.2024 till the date of realization ; ffi e9 rEB^?r5

¶26

W,#$

¶27

lOA.No.27zl2024)

¶28

d) A sum of Rs.11,24,01,729.09ps towards working capital term loan

¶29

facility with future interest @ 16.10olo p.a from L8.06.2024 tilt the date of realization ;

¶30

and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶31

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Company and defendant no.2 is her husband of Late Sri Telapolu Ram prasad were directors of Defendant no.1 company avalled overdraft facility of Rs.14,75,00,000/-. Defendants no.2 to 4 stood as guarantors to the loan avaired and defendant no.4 deposited originar titre deeds of immovable properties on 22.03.2019 and 13.04.2019 and executed Memorandum of deposit of tiue deeds infavour of Appricant bank. Sri Telapolu Ram prasad died on 07.07.2}tg leaving behind defendants 2,3 and 5 as regar heirs. The defendants avaired working capital TL-GECL -1 facility of Rs,2,26,00,000/_ vide sanction letter dated 22.7.2020. The Applicant bank restructured the overdraft facility into 3 facilities i.e., FITL for Rs.2,19,00,000/-i working capital of Rs.7,86,00,000/- and overdraft of Rs.2.00 Crores on 09.01 .2021. After g*hBfthe-loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the t66<qkiion!fu." the appricant bank was constrained to frasify.^{,l&._":". q\r^} on 28.02.2022 and issued demand 'no,,.o l"1"5dr?[4. zonff^asare notice dated 13.04.2023.rnspite or

¶32

(oA.No.272/2024],

¶33

several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶34

Defendants 1 to 5 called absent and set exparte on 06.LL.2Q24.

¶35

Sri V. SatishKumar, Asst. Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.56.

¶36

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶37

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?

¶38

Defendants remained exparte. 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 A.56. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶39

ZffuB@N"sent^{oA is arowedwith costs, as under:} .'fyrn" o&,ount.%}\ jointly and severally liable to pay to the ,." *il - np$titaFftB#?ff< a -'tiltat sum of Rs.13,05,50,014.91ps^(Rupees ;1 ,':"r

¶40

W-.

¶41

(OA.No.272/20241

¶42

Thirteen Crores Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand fourteen and paase Ninety one only) i.e.,

¶43

a) A sum of Rs.1,11,88,574,82ps towards Term loan (GECL) with future interest @ 13.960lo p.a from 0L.06.2024 till the date of realization;

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.3,52,858/- towards OD facility with^future interest @ 16.10% p.a from 16.06.2024 till the date of realization;

¶45

c) A sum of Rs.66,06,853/- towards FITL with future^interest @ 16.l0o/o p.a from 18.06.2024 till the date of^realization ;

¶46

d) A sum of Rs.11,24,01,729.Ogps^{towards working capitalterm} loan facility with future interest @^{16.lOo/op.a from} L8.06.2024 till the date of^realization ;

¶47

The Applicant bank is^{entitledto proceed againstthe hypothecated} and mortgaged^properties as described^{in the schedule to OA towards} realization of the debt due.

¶48

The Applicant Bank is also entitled^{to proceed againstthe person} and properties of defendants^{towards realizationof the debt} due. Ho applicant nanf is entitled to^{proceedonly to the} ed upon defendants No.2,3 and 5^{from the} Prasad.

¶49

{^{r1FEB2s6 :} W*#

¶50

loA.No.272/2024],

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶55

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11ih day of Feb, 2025)

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ffi%@-"\itp '
$
1

c,w%.
Ard.RroE,,J.
oRT.l, HV1FD 4Rtt1

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/s. Suyati Impex Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/s. Suyati Impex Private Limited

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

Ms Chelpuru Brothers Cloth Sotres versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Chintalapati Saidulu versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Js Upvc and Glass Solutions

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Devarashetty Kavitha

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vamsi Furniture World

Smt Bandi Surya Bhavani versus Hdfc Bank