Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S Sree Someswara Agencies

DRT27 Feb 2025OA/281/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Karnataka Bank Ltd. for recovery of a defaulted overdraft facility. Defendants failed to file written statements or adduce evidence, leading to the application being decided based on the bank's evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.4,51,02,088.41 with future interest; recovery certificate issued.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S Sree Someswara Agencies — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAYOF FEBRUARY'2025} PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWARKOTHE, B Com' L LB' (Hons')'M A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATION NO. 281 OF 2024}

¶3

Karnataka^{Bank Ltd.} 2Ol28- 1, Rajshri^{Hotel Complex} RailwaY Station^{Road, Adonl} Kurnool Dist.^{AndhraPradesh} Rep by its^GPA.

¶4

....Applicant.

¶5

And

¶6

M/s. Sree Someswara^Agencies Rep by its^Proprietor Smt. Medehal^Govardhan D. No. 15/492,^{Gosha HosPitalRoad} Adhoni, Kurnool^Dist. Andhra Pradesh -^{518 301.}

¶7

sri Medehal^Govardhan S/o M. Naganna^Goud Aqed about⁵⁰ Years occ: Business, HIG-43 APHB Colony,^{Near Arts College} Adoni, Kurnool^District Andhra Pradesh-518301.

¶8

J. Smt. Medehal^Suvarna Wo^{M. Govardhan} Aged about⁴⁶ Years Occ: Business,^HIG-43 APHB Colony,^{Near Arts College} Adoni, Kurnool^District Andhra Pradesh-518301.

¶9

..... Defendants

¶10

Counsel^{for APPlicant} Defendants

: Mr. N. Rama^Rao.

: No representation.

oa,2aal2o24

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for} the^{recovery of a} sum of Rs.4,51,02,088.41Ps^{jointly and severallyfrom the} defendants with future interest @17.50o/o^perannum compounded monthty^{from the date of Applicationtill the date} of realisation along with costs and^{sale OA schedule assets.}

¶17

The averments of applicant bank^{as per the oA, briefly,are that} 1st defendant is the borrower,^{2nd defendantis its proprietor} and 3'{ defendant is the^guarantor to the^{overdraft facility of} Rs.1,5o,oo,ooo/- availed by 1st defendant^{vide sanction letter} dated 15.02.2016. Defendants executed^{requisiteloan} documents for the said facility. After^{some part payments,} defendants committed default^{resultingclassificationof loan} account as NPA by 04.10.2017.^{Defendants acknowledged the} debt and^promised to clear the dues as early as^possible. Applicant issued demand notice,^{possessionnotice and sale} notices under SARFAESI Act. Despite^{notice, defendants failed} to discharge the liability. Hence the^presentOA.

¶18

Though defendants entered appearance through^{Advocate,lYr.} T. Nagender, did not choose to file^written statement.^Hence defendants right of filing written statement^{was forfeitedvide} docket order dated la-Lo.2024.

¶19

Applicant Bank examined D. Khajamoinuddin, Assistant Manager and GPA Holder, as AW-1 and marked 30 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.30.

¶20

oa.2aLl2024

¶21

Defendants right to adduce^{evidencewas forfeitedon} 30.01.2025 for there being no^{representation'}

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for^{the applicant. Learned} counsel appearing for the^{defendantsreported no oral} arguments. Perused the^{material placedon record'}

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the^{applicant submitsthat} defendants dld not^pursue the^{case either by filing written} statement or adducing^{evidenceor advancing arguments.} Therefore, applicant bank^{is entitledto the oA claimin view of} evidence amdavit of^{AW.1 coupledwith recitals in ExhibitsA.1} to A.30. Accordingly,^{learned counselprayed for allowing the} OA claim in favour of the^{applicantbank and againstthe} defenda nts.

¶24

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

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against^the Defendants and OA schedule assets?

¶26

As stated supra,^{of the two defendants have not pursued the} case except entering appearance^{through his counsel. Under} such circumstances, the^{EvidenceAffidavit of AW.1 coupled with} the recitals in documents^{viz., Exs.A.1to A.30 marked on behalf} of the Applicant Bank^{remains unchallenged and unrebutted and} thus clinches the clalm of the^{Applicant Bank against the} Defendants. Hence I found that^{defendants1 to 3 are jointly} and severally are tiable to^{pay the claim madeby the Applicant} Bank in the O.A. with future^{interestand cosls.} /4tQ.>/-,*, l_./^/s$_

¶27

¶28

0 A.2a!2024

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.2BL/2O24 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) defendants 1to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,51,02,08g.41ps to the applicant bank with future interest @12olo^per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage/ hypothecation of assets described in the schedules annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the same for recovery of its debt;

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on Web^portal.

¶37

(Dictated-to the sleno, signld urd pronounced by me in the open court on this the 276 day of February, 2025).

¶38

/dwt's'b (exdesxwen KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S Sree Someswara Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S Sree Someswara Agencies

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

chakradhara agarbathi industries versus Syndicate Bank

Narmula Santhosh Kumar versus Bank of Baroda

The Axis Bank Limited., versus Siris Impex

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Kante Sai Charan

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus S Satish Chandra Reddy

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S Someswara Cotton Corporation