Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Sri Unnati Seeds

DRT23 Apr 2025OA/315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed OA No.315 of 2024 filed by Karnataka Bank Limited against borrowers for recovery of Rs.4.79 crores principal with future interest @ 15% p.a. and costs due to default on OD and deferment facilities.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.4,79,33,382.86 with future interest; entitle bank to recover from hypothecated properties and personal assets; recovery certificate issued.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Unnati Seeds — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 23RD DAy OF ApRrL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.315 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Karnataka Bank ltd, Branch office at ground floor, Beside pillar no.210, MQ Splendour Complex, Rajender Nagar, Rangareddy district, TS. Rep by its GPA holder Sri Omar Saheb

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Unnati Seeds, Represented by its Proprietor Sri G. Ramkishan, flat no.203, Srinivas towers, Meerbagh colony, Hyderabad road, Nalgonda,

¶10

TS - 508 001.

¶11

Sri GurramRamkishan, s/o G. Papaiah, aged about 61 years, occ: business, R/o plot no.100,

¶12

north Raghavender Nagar colony, Jillelaguda, Near Shivapriya Talent school, Hyderabad - 500 097.

¶13

SmtGurramRadha, w/o G. Ramkishan, aged about 61 years, occ: housewife, R/o plot no.100, north Raghavender Nagar colony, Jillelaguda, Near Shivapriya Talent school, Hyderabad - 500 097 Defendants

¶14

-..r'-'i:::;**,

¶15

Cou nsel for the eu;t6.ra,*i.1' ",t,,AT,f For the Applicant .,..i . ;;..'. '111 16 Sri N. Rao iiFxnart For the DeFendErnts :

¶16

(oA. No.31s/2024)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4,79,33,382.86ps (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Nine Lakhs Thirty three thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Two and paise Eighty six only) i.e.,

¶19

a) A sum of Rs.4,56,95,610.86ps with futureinterest @ 15.45o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs.22,37,772/-with future interest @ 15.35olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶21

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

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Company and defendants 2 & 3 are its Proprietor and guarantor who availed OD facility of Rs.2,50,00,000/on 18.11.2017. The defendants executed various necessary documents. As a primary security, the defendants hypothecated the stock in trade and deposited the title deeds of schedule mentioned property. The d ed equitable mortgage of immovable ia. -...^.i "1.;-j-, r. property in favour of Rppticdht'.,tlrrt. rne defendants also availed .^..J i,r.,', deferment DP,N.2O20 facility of Rs.44.00 lakhs on 03.07.2020. After i,,l 2 3 APH zffi I:;

¶23

(oA. No.31sl202a)

¶24

availing the loan facilities, the defendants^{failed to complythe terms} of sanction, hencethe applicant bank^{wasconstrained to classify the} account as NPA on 31.03.2021 and^{issueddemand notice dated} 23.O9.2O2l.lnspite of several requests^{and demands, the defendants} did not clear the outstanding. Hence^{this OA.}

¶25

Defendants remained exparte on^31.t2.2024.

¶26

Sri D. Omar Saheb, Branch^{Manager of the ApplicantBank} examined himself as AW.1 and^{exhibited relevantdocuments,which} are marked as Ex.A.1to 4.47.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the^{Applicant Bank.}

¶28

The^point that arise^{for consideration is whetherthe ApplicantBank is} entitled for the claim made in the OA^{against the Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶29

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.Al to A.47- In view of} the above, I hold that the Applicant^{Bank has established their claim} made in the OA against the Defendants^{and hencethe ApplicantBank} is entitled to recover the claim^{madein the OA with future interest} and costs.

¶30

In the result, the^present OA^is allowed^{with costs, as under:} the Defendafits,. are^jointlv and severally^{liable to pay to the} Applicantltaflk a totdl Bum of Rs.4,79,33,382.86ps^(RupeesFour 1t ' ') '! rr- :r::

(oA.No.315 /2024l'

Crores Seventy Nine Lakhs Thirty three thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Two and paise Eighty six only) i.e.,

¶35

a) A sum of Rs.4,56,95,610.86ps with future interest @ 15.45o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶36

b) A sum of Rs.22,37,772/- with future interest @ 15.35olo^p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶38

10, The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23'd day of April, 2025)

¶44

sd/^_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

t y ltt*.- _-Tf
ff'trtry
n*.ffi'''
onr"r,.gynenam**

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Sri Unnati Seeds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Sri Unnati Seeds

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

Bank of India versus M S Manchala Wines

Canara Bank versus M/S. Bhanu Traders (Sole Proprietary Firm)

Mohammed Rahamat Pasha versus Indian Bank

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sri. Haligi Ramesh

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Mahakali Motors

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shiak Mahaboob Nawaz