Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sri Venkateswara Emu Farm

DRT9 Sept 2025OA/300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Indian Overseas Bank against a farm entity and its proprietor for recovery of a term loan defaulting amount with interest, holding the defense of limitation and non-feasance inexecutable due to lack of proof.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 28,57,618 and interest @ 16.25% p.a. from 16.07.2024; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties and personal assets of respondents.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Venkateswara Emu Farm — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^gTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.3OO ol 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Naidupet branch, Khammam district, Khammam, Telangana

¶7

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Sri Venkateswara Emu Farm, Represented by its^proprietor, D.No.4-85, Kothagudem, Velugumatla, Khammam District - 507 318.

¶11

Sri V. Malleswara Rao, s/o Late Muthaiah, aged major, occ: business, D.No.4-85, Kothagudem, Velugumatla, Khanrmant District - 507 318.

¶12

Defenda nts

¶13

_ - _t-,.,1,: -
Counsel for the Partiesl I .
'' +tAN
Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee
For the Applicant-," ., ,'
:'"i '$'
Defendants ' M/s. Ramana Allu
,, , ogstPzm *
W,*ry

¶14

(oA.No.300/2024)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.28,57,618/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Eighteen only) with

¶17

further interest @ 16.25olo p.a with monthly rests from L6.07.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA;

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.l" is a firm represented by defendant no.2 as its proprietor availed term loan of Rs.27.00 lakhs on04.07.2013. Defendant no.2 deposited the title deeds with an intention to create equitable mortgage of schedule property on 02.07.2013. The defendants filed WP.3370712017 before Hon'ble High Court of State of Telangana directing the applicant bank not to take any coercive steps which is still pending. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendant has availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA, Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 11.06,2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same.''^{-.TrEg'tp$.ctaim} of Applicant against defendants is of . I . : ..',i'i.\i'',,"I+]<sup>-,,.... :_.^.-. r, ir::, ..i"1. Rs.28,67,514;6;i 1ni$ie,qs Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixty Seven ip '*i tlil:"'fl f'-ift1ff'"0 f9d eisnteen onrv) with rurther interest

¶19

(oA.No.300/2024)

¶20

@ 16.250lo^{p.a with monthly rests from16.07.2024 till the date of} realization. Hence^{the OA.}

¶21

The Defendant^{No.2filed written statementand denied the averments} made in OA. It is^{contended that no documentswere filed by} defendants and that the^{defendantsdid not createequitable} mortgage in favour of^{Applicant bank. Itis submittedthat the} defendants along^{with other faflnerssufferedlosses due to cyclones} like Laila,^pylon and^{Hud-Hud and one of the farmers of association} addressed a letter to^{NABARD on 08.01.2014. The defendantsfiled} WP. No.22424/2016 challenging^{the SARFAESI proceedings and sale} notice under SARFAESI Act.^{Hence prayed for dismissalof OA'} Defendant no.2 examined^{himself as DW.1 butnot filed any} d ocu ments.

¶22

I have^perused the docunrents^{placedon record.}

¶23

Heard the arguments.

¶24

Now, the points that arise^{for consideration are:} i) Whetherthe Applicant^{Bank has provedits claim as made in OA} against the defendants^?

¶25

ii) To what relief ?

¶26

Point No.i):

¶27

Sri Chintala Hari^{Babu, Manager/ AW.1} who was examined on^behalf the liability of the defendants'

¶28

¶29

Exhibits A.1 to,7Ah{7 pplicant bank clearlY establish the liability "flE{" o+gqgp'Z125^* I\E ?

¶30

(OA.No.300/2024)

¶31

7 , AW.1 was not cross examined by^{the defendants. Even though} defendant No.z examined^himself as^{DW.1, he has not filed any} documents, hence his^{evidence is in noway helpful to him. The} defendant no.2 having taken^{the plea they sufferedlosses and} approached NABARD for^{financialsupport and that the presentOA was} barred by limitation, failed^{to place any substantialproof to that effect.} The WP.No.337047/2017 filed^{before the Hon'ble High Court for the} State of Telangana and^{WP.93B3/2OL5, WP.224212016are still} pending. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by^the Applicant bank makes clear^{that all the relevantdocumentsare} executed by the deFendantsⁱⁿ the^{normalcourseof transaction'The} defendants very vaguely^{contended that particulars madein the OA} are not correct. But as^{per the statement of accounts,the defendants} are liable to^pay the OA claim.^{Considering all the circumstances, I} am of opinion that the defense^{taken by the defendantsis not tenable.} Hence the applicant bank is^entitled to^{claim the OA amount from} defendants. Therefore, the OA^{claim deservesto be allowed against} the defendants.

¶32

Point No.ii)

¶33

B. In the result, the^present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶34

The Defend ants:EEfidffilx^{a nd} severally^{liable to pay} to Applicant .Jl i'^' ':-. /)/ "X.tjc.f Ba n k a r#fu:^ iit*.; i,'%*j 8/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs \ f/^tP {ii ndred and Eighteen only) with sixty seten ilt"$Ffitrt,' :

&'rffi

(oA. No.300/2024)

{

further interest @ 16.25% p.a from 16.07.2024 till the date of realization;

¶39

q The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged schedule property as mentioned in the OA towards realisation of the debt due;

¶40

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realizatron ot the debt due.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certiFicate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated lo LhC P.n, tr,rr sar l)(''.1 l,y h,ir, Lor'rr, leri, siil cJ a d pro|ounced by me in the open coLlrt on this the 81 day of Sept 202!)

¶46

sd/-

¶47

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶48

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

0 g s[P 216

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sri Venkateswara Emu Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sri Venkateswara Emu Farm

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 Venkateshwara Rice Traders

Sri Sai Poultry versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kareem Syed versus Unity Small Finance Bank

State Bank of India versus Swastik Enterprises

State Bank of India versus S. Abhinay Kumar Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sevalal Industry