Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Rishabh Plastic

DRT17 Feb 2025OA/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an arbitration award application filed by Karur Vysya Bank against a proprietorship firm and its personal guarantors for recovery of a loan of Rs. 2.92 crores along with interest and permission to enforce against mortgaged/hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to payment of Rs. 2.92 crores plus interest; permission to realize debt from mortgaged properties and personal assets of guarantors; issue of recovery certificate.

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Rishabh Plastic — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17rH DAy OF FEBRUARY,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.37 ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

The KarurVysya Bank Ltd, Asset Recovery Management branch, D.No.5-B-356 to 362, 3.d floor, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Rishabh^ptastic, Represented by its proprietor Mr. Praveen kedia, S.No.36/38, Elikatta Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District - 509 410.

¶9

Mr. Praveen Kedia, ( proprietor & g ua ra ntor) s/o Sam Sunder Kedia, major, occ:business, male, su n rise villa No.150, near pillar no.1B0, Upparpally, Hyderabad - 500 O4B.

¶10

Mrs. NishaKedia (guarantor) w/o Mr. Praveen Kedia, major, occ: business, female, sun rise villa no.150, near pillar no. 180, Upparpally, Defendants Lanka Jagannadham P. Praveen Kumar ..,j!r,r": ::,i:' Vry9z

¶11

(OA.No.37 /20241

¶12

ORDER

¶13

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,g2,55,654.14ps (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Fifty Five thousand Six hundred Fifty Four and paise Fourteen only) (Rs.1,44,G3,L62.52ps + Rs.L,37,92,491.62ps ) with subsequent interest @ 16.15olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶14

2' As per the averments in the applcation, the Appricant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietrix the defendant no.2 avaired cash credit of Rs.2.00 crores, HPMA facility of Rs.4,80,00,000/_ and HPLO facility of Rs.2,70,00,000/-. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors to the loan availed by defendant no.1 firm. On 06.09.2017, the defendant no.1 executed demand promissory note, Hypothecation agreement for cash credit/ over draft, machinery loan agreement and agreement of hypothecation of movables and agreed to repay the roan amount with interest. Defendants 2 and 3 mortgaged the schedule mentiongQ-{-gperties in favour of applicant bank. On 25.06.2021, -.-l:l^{.--, ':tt.-'} :lPidefi+srrr?iaVai.leo ' -.,.1.,-^{Rs.1,40,00,000/-} \r'+t tvtvvtwwwt^u rruE^nde^r LUVIU^covid^regut l^atory 7''-.i'^{-- '-} e' ,'''fuius to 4$ existirf ioans. After avairing the roan facirities, the !::' ... , ??(, nd*li i.,.¹ I Frs 7rfi :i i rt

¶15

(oA.No.37 /2o2a)

¶16

defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 03.tL.2022 and issued demand notice dated OL.t2.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶17

Counsel for defendants Sri P. Praveen kumar filed vakalath for

¶18

defendants 1 to 3 but failed to file written statement.

¶19

Sri PNSV Chalapathi Rao, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶20

examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which

¶21

are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶24

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶25

prayed for?

¶26

7' Counser for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire wS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibrted rerevant documents In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant ir claim made in the OA against the Applicant Bank is entiiled to recover the

¶27

,107",[E$.,3r6o re interest and costs.

¶28

¶29

{OA.No.37/2024l'

¶30

8' In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under:

¶31

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,g2,5S,654.14ps (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Fifty Five thousand Six hundred Fifty Four and paise Fourteen only)(Rs.1,4 4,63,L62.52ps + Rs.1,37,92,491.62ps ) with subsequent interest @ 16.15olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in schedule to

¶33

OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶35

and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant

¶36

no.l firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶39

of receipt of order.

¶40

fqe<br>,: ltrlsnn "J
W

¶41

(oA.No.37l2024)

¶42

13, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

L4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

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

¶45

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

.t
rEBMs :

¶47

OEBl"x55i1qh*n^'

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Rishabh Plastic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Rishabh Plastic

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

Smt D Geetha Bharath versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Mr Abdul Raheem Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited

Mr Abdul Hafeez Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/s. Ssr Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/s. Maruthi Oil Stores and Electrical Parts

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Krishna Seeds