Allowed

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, v. M/S.. Suraksha Engineering Works

DRT14 May 2025OA/335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank's Original Application for recovery. The Bank established the claim through documentary evidence as the defendants were absent. The Order imposes joint and several liability on defendants for the principal sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.22,15,072.38 with subsequent interest @ 17.45% per annum from the date of application till realization.

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, versus M/S.. Suraksha Engineering… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH^{DAY OF MAY, 2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.335 ot 2O24

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. KarurVysya Bank^Ltd, Kazipet branch, 25-6-3891 t, Ground floor, VishnuPuri, Kazipet, Telangana. Represented by its authorized^signatory

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Suraksha Engineering^works, Represented by its ProPrietor, M ughisu lAbideen Khaja,

¶10

Male, aged 31^years, occ: business, Plot no.55 & 56,

¶11

Sy.no.1583, Manikonda,

¶12

Hanamkonda - 506 003.

¶13

Mr. MughisulAbideenKhaja, s/o GhouseUlaibdeenKhaja, proprietor of M/s. Suraksha Engineering works, male, Aged 31^years, occ: business, D.No. 14-4-64, Mandi bazaar, Warangal - 506 007,

¶14

Mohammed Afrooz Khan, s/o Rasheed Ahmed,^male, aged about 33 Years,^{occ:business,} D.No. 17-7-163,^{KM college,} U.R.S.U, Kareembad, Warangal - 506 002.

¶15

-6t
'ltY
frtr rfls

¶16

Mohammed Riyazudddin, s/o Mohammed^Abbas,male aged 60^years, occ:^busi H.No,.55-4-25,^{Balaji Banja}

¶17

¶18

(oA. No.33s/2024)

¶19

Gu nd lasinga ra m, Hanumakonda- 506 002

¶20

Defendants

¶21

Counsel for the Parties:

¶22

For the Applicant

¶23

Sri L. Jagannadham

¶24

For the Defendants Exparte

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed^{the present OA against Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,L5,O72.38ps^{(Rupees Twenty} Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand^{Seventy Two and paise Thirty} eight only) with subsequent^interest @^{17.45o/op'afrom date of} application till the date^{of realization.}

¶27

As per the averments in the^{application, the ApplicantBankstates} that defendant No.1^{is the proprietary concern represented by its} proprietor/ defendant no.2 and defendants 3^{& 4stood as} guarantors. The defendants 1 &^{2 availed financialfacilityfor a sum} of rs.20.00 lakhs^{and executeddemand promissory notes, HPO-1,} agreement of hypothecation of^{movables,and machinery loan} agreement etc,^{The defendantno.2 deposited the originalsale deed} bearingno.4774/2OL4dated03.ll.2014withapplicantbankand created charge oler the Property. After availing the^loan facilit iled to comply the terms^{of sanction,} l/ nenc9i't6b applicant bank ified the account as^{NPAand issued} * tl I 'lr* ,.7 * g '.r'" {' r* '/

¶28

(OA. No.335/2024)

¶29

notices. Inspite of several^{requestsand demands,the defendants} did not clear the outstanding.^{Hence this OA. The propertieswere} auction under SARFAESI^{Act on 31.03.2022and 24.LL.2023 and the} auction^proceeds were^{adjusted to loan accountsof defendants.}

¶30

Defendants called absent^{and set exparte on 20.02.2025.}

¶31

Sri P.N,S.V. Chalapathi^{Rao, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank} examined himself as^{AW.1and exhibited relevantdocuments,which} are marked as Ex.A.1^{to A.18.}

¶32

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

¶33

The^point that arise^{for consideration is whetherthe Applicant Bank is} entiued for the claim^{made in} the^{oA against the Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶34

Defendants remained^{exparte.To substantiatethe case of the} Applicant Bank, AW.1,^{officialof the ApplicantBankwas examined} and he exhibited^{relevant documentsas Ex.Al to A. 18'In view of} the above, I hold that^{the Applicant Bank has established their claim} made in the oA against^{the Defendantsand hencethe ApplicantBank} is entitled to made in the OA with future^interest

¶35

and costs.

¶36

1 4 rrv 'pr *

¶37

(OA.No.33s/2024)

¶38

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶39

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,15,072.38ps (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seventy Two and paise Thirty eight only) with subsequent interest @ L7.45o/o p.a from date of applicationtill the date of realization.

¶40

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of 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 to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of l,4ay, 2025)

¶46

sdl-

¶47

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

1 4 tiiY:15

¶49

ORT.', 'TyDERABAD,

¶50

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, v. M/S.. Suraksha Engineering Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, v. M/S.. Suraksha Engineering Works

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 M/S. Subhiksha Enterprises

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammed Masiuddin

State Bank of India versus Sri. Abothu Satya Prasad Babu

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Chaitany Spoorthi Offset

Mr Nerangal Nagaraj versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ramanarao Nibhanapuri