Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nandita Granites

DRT6 May 2025OA/287/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of debts, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the claim of Canara Bank against a firm and its legal heirs/guarantors for a total of Rs. 2.62 crores along with interest and costs, directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,62,69,710.04 with future interest; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Nandita Granites — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 6rH DAy oF MAy, 2o2s

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.287 ol2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, N.S. Road branch, D. No. 5-3- 1062, Veerji Towers, Osmangunj area, Opp Hotel Jewel Residency, Near Old P.S. Begumpet Bazar, Hyderabad - 500 001. TS. Represented by its GPA and Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Nandita Granites, Represented by its partners H.No.B-5-5715, Devi nilayam, Near Vicinity Hospital, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad TS - 500 011.

¶10

SmtTallamSridevi, w/o Late TallamVenkateswara Rao, aged major, occ: business, F.No.505, silver springs, Jayabheri park, Opp: Jayabheri Water Tank, Kompally, Medchal, Malkajgiri District - 500 010.

¶11

Sri Tallam Kumar Kaushik, s/o Late TallamVenkateswara Rao, ffin':t'i:,,, aged major, Occ; business, rP F. No.505, E-g silver springs, Jayabheri pa rk, Opp: Jayabheri Water Tank, i o5ilAYro6 : Kompally, Medchal, Malkajgiri District - 500 010. WI,,,r=ttr#

¶12

(oA. No.287l2023)

¶13

SmtTallamNandita, D/o late TallamVenkateswara Rao, Aged major, occ: business, F.No.505, silver springs, Jayabheri park, Opp: Jayabheri Water Tank, Kompally, Medchal, Malkajgiri District - 500 010. Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant Sri M.V. Kini

For the Defendants

Sri C. Sreedhar

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,62,69,710.04ps (Rupees Two crores Sixty Two Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Ten and paise four only) ie.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.2,10,61 ,424.58ps for OCC loan account with future interest @ 13.15olo p.a with monthly rests from 01.10.2023 till the date of realization;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.32,37,232.68ps under GECL loan account with future interest @ 9.25olo p.a with monthly rests from 01.10.2023 till the date of realization;

¶22

c) A sum of Rs.3,83,373.31ps -under. FITL-I loan account with future
i"*'<br>interest @ 13.55Vo yl,oq from 01.10.2023 till
the date of realirafiS
B o6illtzr- ,.i
A- r- r (.f, - / ... - i'f.':t
'.)

¶23

\oA.No.287 /20231

¶24

d) A sum of Rs.15,87,679.83ps for FITL-II loan account with future interest @ 13.55o/o p.a with monthly rests from 01.10.2023 till the date of realization;

¶25

And in default for sale of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a partnership concern represented by its partners late Mr. TallamVen kateswa ra Rao and Mrs. TallamSridevi who are also the guarantors of defendant no.1 firm availed the facilities. Defendant no.1 partner Sri TallamVenkateswara Rao expired on 07.07.2022 and consequent to the death, the firm is continued by wife-partner and other legal heirs who are arrayed as defendants no.2 to 4.m The defendant no.1 firm through its managing partner availed working capital of Rs.180.00 lakhs on 31.03.2018. Due to covid pandemic the defendant no.1 firm faced financial crunch and availed GECL facility of Rs.36.00 lakhs on 05.09.2020. The Applicant bank renewed the existing OCC timits Rs.18.00 lakhs and FITL-I of Rs.14.23 lakhs and FITL-II of Rs.6.00 lakhs. Further the defendants availed adhoc facility for a sum of Rs.45.00 lakhs. However, as on 22.06.2021, the total liability on adhoc is Rs.16.60 lakhs. The defendants executed copy of ctiandum of .l of title deeds, copy of request for .|.!l! ng(,4loans,i-g v of application for restructuring -L ;^SEuv;161< ta*,-r t,2 ,r,i.r^o . *' ..,!.i

¶27

(OA.No.287 /2023)

¶28

loanfacilities, copy of undertaking, copy of letter of renewal of OCC facility etc.

¶29

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 26.12.2022 and issued demand notice dated 30.L2.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2,62,69,21o.o4ps (Rupees Two crores sixty Two Lakhs sixty Nine Thousand seven Hundred Ten and paise four only) with future interest @ 13.15% F.o, @ 9.25o/o p.a and @ 13.55% p.arespectively with monthly rests from 01.10.2023 till the date of realization. Hence the OA. 2' The Defendants No.1 to 4 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and mortgage of schedule property. It is submitted by the defendants that the Applicant bank got signatures on blank printed formats and denied the classification of account as NpA without following the RBI guidelines. It is further submitted that the Applicant 9e1t capitalized the penal interest which is against the law.

¶30

,:Hence^prayefr, smissal of OA.

¶31

(OA. No.287l2023)

¶32

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence aFfidavit duly sworn in by Sri G. Raveendar, Chief Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 3Tdocuments as Ex.A.1 to A.37. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on Lt.04.2025.

¶33

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:the points that arise for consideration are:points that arise for consideration are:that arise for consideration are:arise for consideration are:for consideration are:consideration are:are:

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:the points that arise for consideration are:points that arise for consideration are:that arise for consideration are:arise for consideration are:for consideration are:consideration are:are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶36

ii) To what relief ?

¶37

Point No.i):

¶38

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to shoW their bo nafides for establishing that they have '.1notavailed loan from tAq)pl icant bank. i' '.'," i 'ri,'" itt^\r :t i-, 0[.r'"-a* |"-.; it!;i \ ,r( r.,!: . '''.:',. ,--" .:;

¶39

(OA. No.28712023)

¶40

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their riabiriiy is ress than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not mortgaged the schedule proeprties. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupred with recitars Ex.A.1 to A'37 stood unchailenged and unrebutted. The Appricant bank crearry estabrished that the defendants are riabre to pay the oA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

7' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as u nde r:

¶43

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,62,69,710.04ps (Rupees Two crores sixty Two Lakhs sixty Nine Thousand seven Hundred Ten and paise four only) ie.,

¶44

a) A sum of Rs.2,10,61 ,424.58ps for occ roan account with future interest @ 13.15olo p.a from 01.10.2023 tiil the date of realization;

¶45

b) A sum of Rs.32,37,232.68ps under GECL roan account with

¶46

futu re from 01.10.2023 tiil the date of

¶47

0 6 fiAy lnff

¶48

(OA. No.287l2023)

¶49

c) A sum of Rs.3,83,373.31ps under FITL-I loan account with future interest @ 13.55% p.a from 01.10.2023 till the date of rea lization ;

¶50

d) A sum of Rs.15,87,679.83ps for FITL-II loan account with future interest @ 13.55o/o p.a from 01.10.2023 till the date of realization;

¶51

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶52

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.However the Applicant bank is entitled to proceed only to the extent of estate devolved upon legal heirs/ defendants no.2 to 4 from the deceased Late TallamVenkateswara Rao.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶57

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 2O2s)

¶58

w
e5
;;

¶59

sd/_

¶60

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

oRT-r, Hwlaqra r 1.

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nandita Granites

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Nandita Granites

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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri. Shaswanth Kumar Gampala

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy versus Bank of Baroda

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus M/S. Maxxtouch Imppex Indai Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M.S. Globe Master Robes

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sree Nihar Industries