Allowed

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. M/S Navajeevan Organization

DRT26 May 2025OA/344/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery of a loan sum, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim against a registered society and its seven governing members, finding the application within the limitation period and despite the bank having to proceed against the society's assets held by its governing members.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to pay Rs. 70,25,709/- with interest at 18% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development versus M/S… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY'2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.344 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural development, H.No.1-1-61, RTC "X" roads, PB No.1863, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500 020. Represented by its^power of Attorney holder

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Navajeevan Organisation, Represented by its Executive Director Mr. K. Sahadevaiah, having its office At D.No.9-216, East street, Ambedkar Nagar, Venkatagiri - 524 L32. SPSR Nellore district.

¶10

Mr. K. Sahadevaiah, Male, aged major, occ: executive Director of M/s. Navajeevan Organisation, D.No.9-216, East street, Ambedkar Nagar, Venkatagiri - 524 132. SPSR Nellore district.

¶11

Mrs. Ch. Victoria,
female, aged major, occ: Assistant
D D.No.9-216, i rector of M/s. East N a street, vajeeva RmbeJka'r'-.-, n O rga n1;aUori;.--:il ' t?$i'::,^
Nagar, Venkatagiri - 524 132. i= ,..ji ti':,"<br>SPSR Nellore district. ' i' .L
ilJ
4. I. Venkataiah,Venkataiah, 2 6 r{AY ?06

¶12

I. Venkataiah,Venkataiah, Male, aged major, occ: M/s. Navajeevan Organisatio D.No.9-216, East street, Am

¶13

(OA.No.344 of 2022)

¶14

	Nagar,Venkatagiri-SZ4132. SPSRNelloredistrict.
5.	Mr.K.Penchaliah, Agedmajor,Male,occ:Coordinator ofM/s.Navajeevan Organisation, D.No.9-216,Eaststreet,Ambedkar Nagar,Venkatagiri-524t3Z. SPSRNelloredistrict.
6.	Mr.B.Venakateswarlu, Agedmajor, occ:mandalcoordinator OfM/s.Navajeevan Organisation, D.No.9-216,Eaststreet,Ambedkar Nagar,Venkatagiri-524I3Z. SPSRNelloredistrict.
7.	Mr. Ch.VijayaKumar, Male,agedmajor,occ:organiser ofM/s.Navajeevan Organisation, D.No.9-216,Eaststreet,Ambedkar Nagar,Venkatagiri-524t32. SPSRNelloredistrict.	Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant G. Adrian Kiran Raj For defendants No.1 to 7 Sri G.L. Prasada Rao

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.7O,2S,7O9l_ (Rupees Seventy

¶18

Lakhs

¶19

Lakhs Thousand- Seven Hundred and Nine only) with with monthly rests from date of filing & ,od*tiil tne 2 6 l4nm I

¶20

(OA.No.344 of 2022)

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and having its office at Opp VRJ College Ambedkarnagar, Venkatagiri Town, Nellore district, A.p. Defendants No.2 to 7 are governing counsel of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 is implementing umbrella programme on natural resources management project in Venkatagiri, Dakkili and Balayapallimandals of Sri pottisriramulu Nellore district, Andhrapradesh. During the course of business, the defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 approached the Applicant bank and submitted the project proposal dated 05.12.2011 and subsequenfly the applicant bank granted loan facility of rs.1,12,60,500/- against the hypothecation of assets created out of loan under the project and disbursed the loan amount. The defendants executed necessary loan documents agreeing to repay the said loan amount with interest @12olo^p.a.

¶22

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants having availed the said loan facilities failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued legal notice dated 28.0L.202L. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and did -r'4:-'r:l:: not come.-.fdrwAril: to reo,:pdyr.the same. The total claim of Applicant againsd .gpfendan.ts", isRsllp;ls,709l- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs rwentf rivp lhpltpsgy S.ffeh Hundred and Nine onty) with ,Ut- ""fl*9/,

¶23

(OA.No.344 of 2022)

¶24

future interest @18% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶25

Defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting that the loan was fully sanctioned vide sanction retter dated 04.07.2ot2and it was fuily secured by the hypothecation of secured assets. The contention of defendant no.1 is that as the roan was avaired by hypothecation of goods, the Applicant has to proceed only against the hypothecated assets of the defendant no.1 and that the oA is barred by rimitation, Defendants no. 2 to 7 f|ed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant no.1.

¶26

3' During the course of triar on beharf of Appricant Bank, sri ch. Murari Mohan Behera, Manager is examined as AW.1 and through him marked 10 documents as Ex,A.1 to A.10. Defendant no.2

¶27

examined himself as DW.1 and he did not exhibit any documents.

¶28

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Heard the arguments.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration

¶31

its claim as made in i) whether ,h. ^p1LffiA;*ffi'di oA asainst tn. a"talliit z [:' ii) To what relief ? n?3

¶32

(OA.No.344 of 2022)

¶33

point No.i):

¶34

7' The Defendants are not disputing the fact that they avaired the roan from the Appricant bank and executed necessary documents. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the defendants executed hypothecation agreement for hypothecation of assets. On behalf of Applicant, AW,1 is examined and he reiterated the version of appricant bank. The material documents are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10. Even though pW,1 is cross examined by defendants, nothing is elicited in cross examination. It is ascertained that the last payment was done in 2019.

¶35

Even though defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 his evidence is in no way helpful to him. The present OA is filed in 2022. The statement of account is marked as Ex.A.1O. As per the statement of accounts, the last payment made by defendants was in 2019. So the present OA is filed within 3 years from the last payment made by the defendants. So the OA filed by appricant is within the rimitation and it is not barred by limitation as contended by the defendants.

¶36

¶37

The defendants are not disputing the execution of the loan documents. so a-s+e+lqlocuments fited by the applicants, it is very .,"". .(;;q ;;"':" r:; ,r" ;: outstanding?'.dt ctai licant bank. As per the mate ria I ;sm"n?' $ilU8v dflZ$nu & icant bank, it ls clear that

¶38

(OA.No.344 of 2022)

¶39

the demand promissory note dated 03.L0.2022 was signed by the defendant no,1. Similarly the loan agreement was executed by defendant no.2 as^president of defendant no.1, Similarly the hypothecation agreement was executed by president of defendant no.1. So the applicant bank has to proceed against the defendant no.1 and the assets of defendant no.1 which are lying in the hands of defendants no.2 to 7. So considering all the .^ circumstances of the case, I hold that the Applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendant No.1 and the assets of defendant no.1 lying in the hands of defendants no. 2 to 7. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 to 7.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

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

¶42

The Defendants No.1 to 7 are liable to pay the Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.7O,25,7O9l- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine only) with future interest @18olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of

¶43

,,6*W''q
!
I
I
il
2 6 ilNw|
l;
. ,i; ;
l\ ' 1.
': ^c..'.},
\ \r' r --a:"4' '-:'.-...1

¶44

(OA.No.344 of 2022)

¶45

the Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the properties of defendant No.1 lying in the hands of defendants No.2 to 7 towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of May, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

: zEHAYm :
K-h,.@

et TRIJE^(l*62 COPY Ass{R0fllstrar DRI.I, HYDERABAL.

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. M/S Navajeevan Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. M/S Navajeevan Organization

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

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another versus State Bank of India

Syed Nasir Hussain And another versus State Bank of India

Vinayaka Raju versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Siddhi Garments

State Bank of India versus Sri. Nayab Hidayathulla

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Cherith Nehan