Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sri. Talluri Hanumantha Rao

DRT8 Apr 2025OA/365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application for recovery of a loan sum including principal, interest, and costs. The court rejected the absence of the respondents and granted the bank's claim for the outstanding dues and right to sell mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered to pay Rs. 65,36,039/- with interest @ 14.90% p.a. from 15.07.2024; recovery certificate issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri. Talluri… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 8rH DAy oF ApRrL, 2o2s

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.365 of 2O24

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Vallabhi branch, Khammam District, Telangana State. Rep by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri TalluriHanumantha Rao, S/o Sri Satyam, aged major, Occ: business, H.no.1-91, Pedamandava village, Mudikondamandal, Khammam

¶10

District - 507 169. TS.

¶11

Mrs. Ta llu riVeera Ku ma ri, w/o Sri Hanumantha Rao, aged major, Occ: business, H.No.1-91, Pedamandava Village, M udikondamandal,

¶12

Khammam district - 507 169.

¶13

Ms. Talluri Seetha,
D/o Sri Hanumantha Rao, aged m aJ or/
H. No. 1-91, Pedanrandava
Village, Mudikondamandal,
Khammam district - 507 169.
{q*-#
.$
,"
€$ {,
4.
Mr. YadlapallyNarasimha YadlapallyNarasimha Rao,
s/o Sri Kotaiah, aged major,Sri Kotaiah, aged major,major, ,i ll
I lPp 2.025
occ: business, H.No.2-39,business, H.No.2-39,
Pedamandava Village,Village,
M udikonda mandal,
Khammam district - 507 169. n da nts

¶14

Mr. YadlapallyNarasimha YadlapallyNarasimha Rao, s/o Sri Kotaiah, aged major,Sri Kotaiah, aged major,major, occ: business, H.No.2-39,business, H.No.2-39, Pedamandava Village,Village,

¶15

(OA. No,365/2024)

¶16

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri DishitBhattacharjee For the Defendants Exparte

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,65,36,038/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Thirty Six thousand and thirty eight only) (Rs.57t24,L93/- + Rs.8,11,845/-) with further interest Gi) t4.90o/o p.awith monthly rests from 15.07.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a borrower and defendant no.2 is coborrower who availed term loan facility of Rs.27.00 lakhs and KCC crop loan facility of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 25.08.202L against hypothecation of 100 EMU birds, machinery and poultry equipment and equitable mortgage of immovable properties. Defendants 3 & 4 stood as guarantors. To secure loan facilities the defendants 1 to 3 deposited their title deeds with intention to create equitable able properties. Subsequently, defendant no.3 ffir the loan facilities, the defendants failed to e3 copply the^-terms of .sanction,^{hence the applicant bank was} B 8 APH 7fI[

¶20

(oA.No.365 12024)

¶21

constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice dated 13.06.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶22

Defendant no.3 expired. Defendants No. l,2 and 4 called absent and set exparte on 30.12.2024.

¶23

Sri Madasusuresh, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.30.

¶24

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the oA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

Defendants No.1 ,2 & 4 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.A1 to A.30. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiUed to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶28

¶29

In the result, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under:

¶30

and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay
i"d\r;
ffi,..I a total sum of Rs.65,36,O39/- (Rupees
sixtu fi'iFni?fs H Six thousand and thirty eight only)
.
i. s,Sl,ip.,";i:l''
ffi

¶31

(oA. No.36s/202a)

¶32

(Rs.57,24,t93/- + Rs.8,11,845/-) with further interest @ 74.90o/o p.a from t5.07.2024 till the date of realization.

¶33

The Appricant bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedure to oA towards realization of the debt due;

¶34

The Applicant Bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.1,2, and 4 towards realization of the debt due. However, the Applicant bank is entifled to proceed only to the extent of estate devolved upon the regar heirs from deceased defendant no.3.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of April, 2025)

¶40

6
rP
;r * llo,Pnil[ *
rA'\r
.(d.
&"-

¶41

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

'"]I,,ffii".,

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sri. Talluri Hanumantha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sri. Talluri Hanumantha Rao

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Varalaxmi Seed Processing Plant

Mandada Sunitha versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Vaddepalli Anurag

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Shiva Sai Seeds

Indian Overseas Bank versus Yadiapalli Ramanadham (Died)

State Bank of India versus M/S. Shanthi Aishwarya Industries LLP