Allowed

Bank of India v. M S Manchala Wines

DRT22 Apr 2025OA/375/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of over Rs. 1.5 crores. The court held that defendants were liable based on documentary evidence and rejected defenses regarding RBI guidelines and limitation due to lack of proof.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed OA. Defendants ordered to pay total sum of Rs. 1,52,63,892.07 with future interest. Proceeds against mortgageable property and properties of Defendants 3 & 4 granted. Recovery certificat

Bank of India versus M S Manchala Wines — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.375 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of India, Basheerbagh branch, H.No.3-5-822 and 3-5-822/8, Ground floor, Bashirbagh to King Koti Main road, Bashirbagh, Hyderabad - 500 029. Telangana State.

¶7

Rep by its Constituted attorney

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Manchala Wines

¶11

Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Erakula Varun, Sy.No.147 &647, Manchala village and mandal,

¶12

Ranga Reddy district - 501 512.

¶13

M/s. Wings Restaurant Represented by lts Proprietor Mr. Erakula Varun.

¶14

Plot no.9& 10, ground floor, OppKamineni Hospital, Vijayawada National Highway, Rangareddydist Telangana - 501 512.

¶15

Mr. Erakula Varun. S/o E. Chadrasekhar, aged about 39 years, H. No. 16-2-75 4/ A/ 63,

¶16

(oA. No.37sl2022 )

¶17

Second address:

¶18

H.No.1-4-172 lo !74, Bholakpur, Hyderabad - 500 080.

¶19

Third address:

¶20

16-02-609, flat no.106, Laxmi Apartment, Nalgonda X road, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶21

Mr. ErukalaSraveen (guarantor) s/o E. Chandrasekhar, aged about 39 years, H. No. 16-2-754/ A/ 63, APAU Colony, Gaddiannaram, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 060.

¶22

Second address:

¶23

16-02-609, flat no. 106, Laxmi Apartment, Nalgonda X road, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶24

Defendants

¶25

Counsel for the Parties:

¶26

For the Applicant

¶27

Defendants No. 1 to 4

¶28

Smt P. Suseela Sri V.Y. Das

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,52,63,892.07ps (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred

¶31

Ninety Two and

¶32

(oA. No.37sl2022)

¶33

a) DeFendants 1,3 & 4 to pay a sum of Rs.74,64,279.11ps in respect

¶34

of cash credit account with Future interest @ 10.75olo p.a plus 2olo penal interest with monthly rests from16.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶35

b) Defendants No.1,3& 4 to pay a sum of Rs.8,03,571.96ps in respect of GECL loan account with future interest @ 9.40olo p.a plus 2o/o p.a as penal interest with monthly rests from 16.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶36

c) Defendants no.1,3 & 4 to pay a sum of Rs.10,3g,756.42ps in respect of term loan(FITL) account with future interest @ g.75olo p.a plus 2o/o p.a as penal interest with monthly rests From 16.tl.2022 till the date of realization;

¶37

d) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.10,43,609.59ps in respect of cash credit loan account with future interest @ ll.25o/o p.a plus 2o/o p.d as penal interest with monthly rests from 16.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶38

e) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.31,78,583.74ps in respect of Term loan account with future interest @ 11.25olo p.a plus 2o/o p.a as penal interest with monthly rests from t6.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶39

f) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.7,05,005.83ps in

¶40

(oA. No.37sl2022)

¶41

g) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.76,74l.39ps in respect of FITL loan account with future interest @ 8.75olo p.a plus 2yo p.a as penal interest with monthly rests from 16.tL.2022 till the date of realization;

¶42

h) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,158.37ps in respect of WCTL loan account with future interest @ 8.75olo p.a plus 2o/o p.a as penal interest with monthly rests from t6.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶43

i) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.8,33,185.67ps in respect of GECL 3.0 loan account with future interest @ 9.75o/o p.a plus 2o/o p.a as penal interest with monthly rests from 1,6.tl.2022 till the date oF realization;

¶44

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

¶45

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.3 availed cash credit facility of Rs.74.00 lakhs and hypothecated the stocks as primary security and collateral security of immovable property. Defendants 2 and 3 availed credit facility of GECL(3.0) on 26.07.2021 and executed loan documents. The defendants executed promissory note, bearer letter, hypothecation cum loan agreement,- - letteq. of declaration, comprehensive

¶46

aof€etn ent 1ir - acknowledgement , ;{ ?.2 npme^* . 4'-" l'-

¶47

(oA. No.37sl2022)

¶48

of debt on 03.04.2019 and further executed acknowredgement of debt on 21.03.2022. The defendant no.1 firm avaired term roan of Rs.10.00 lakhs and defendant no.1,3 & 4 executed various necessary documents. Defendant no.3 proprietor of defendant no.1 availed FITL loan of Rs.16,05,700/- on t6,06.202t and a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs and cash credit of Rs.10.00 rakhs on 23.02.20L8. Defendants no.2 to 4 executed promissory note, bearer letter, hypothecation cum loan agreement, letter of declaration, comprehensive agreement, MCLR agreement and deed of guarantee on 23.02.2018. Defendant no.2 represented by defendant no.3 availed GECL for their business availed Rs.B.B0 rakhs on execution of necessary documents. The defendant no.3 proprietor of defendant no.1 avaired FITL of rs.85,799/- and a sum of Rs.l,2O,6O2/- under WCTL term loan_I. Subsequently the WCTL and FITL was reviewed and a sum of rs.33.87 lakhs and cash credit of rs.10.00 rakhs and arso reviewed the GECL facility for a sum of rs.B.g0 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 26.03.2021.

¶49

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said roan facirities and faired to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on28.08.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant no.1 hai not regurarized the account, and the Appricant bank issued demand noticeodated rzag.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to7rqe,qV96fie sa*ne. The total claim of Applicant against

¶50

(OA. No.37sl2022 )

¶51

defendants is of Rs.1,52,63,892,O7ps (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two and paiseseven only) with future interest @ 10.75olo p.a, @9.40% P.a @^8.40olop.a @lL.25o/o^p.a respectively along with penal interest @ 2%^p.a from 16.71.2022 till the date of realization. Hence the oA.

¶52

The Defendants No.1 to 4 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants contended that the classification of account as NPA was not as per the guidelines of RBI. It is further contended that the applicant bank obtained signatures of defendants on blank papers and denied the hypothecation and mortgage of schedule property in favour of Applicant bank. It is further submitted that the Defendant no.1 company paid a sum of Rs.73.00 lakhs to the Applicant bank inspite of which the account was classified as NPA. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA, Defendant no.1 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶53

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶54

Heard the arguments.

¶55

Now, the for consideration a re:

¶56

(oA. No.37sl2022 )

¶57

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶58

ii) To what relief ?

¶59

Point No.i):

¶60

Sri R. Sarath Kumar, Credit officer/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A. 118 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶61

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.1 examinedhimself as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants No.1 to 4 are liabre to pay the oA claim. considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the

¶62

':.')q ;it r,lt

¶63

(OA.No.37sl2022)

¶64

claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 to 4.

¶65

Point No.ii)

¶66

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u n der:

¶67

The Defendants No.1 to 4 are joinily and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,52,63,g92.07ps (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two and paise Seven only) i.e.,

¶68

a) Defendants 1,3 & 4 to pay a sum of Rs.74,64,279.11ps in respect of cash credit account with future interest @ 10.75% p.a from 16.t7.2022 till the date of realization;

¶69

b) Defendants No.1,3& 4 to pay a sum of Rs.g,03,571.96ps in respect of GECL loan account with future interest @ 9.40olo p.a from L6.tt.2022 till the date of realization;

¶70

c) Defendants no.1,3 & 4 to pay a sum of Rs.10,3g,756.42ps in respect of term loan(FITL) account with future interest @ 8.75o/o p.a from t6.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶71

d) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.10,43,609.59ps in .' "-"'l'" ofc€ash credit loan account with future interest @

¶72

le:gegt .L i

¶73

,rJ-1.2579.p.a frorn _15.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶74

(OA. No.37sl2022 )

¶75

e) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.31,78,583.74ps in respect of Term loan account with future interest @ 11.25% p.a from L6.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶76

f) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.7,05,005.83ps in respect of rerm roan GECL (1.0) account with future interest @ 9.40olo p.a from 16.Lt.2022 till the date of realization;

¶77

g) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.76,741.38ps in respect of FITL loan account with future interest @ 8.75olo p.a from t6.11.2022 till the date of realization;

¶78

h) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,15g.37ps in respect of WCTL loan account with future interest @ 8.75% p.a from 16.Lt.2022 till the date of realization;

¶79

i) Defendants no.2 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.8,33,1g5.67ps in respect of GECL 3.0 loan account with future interest @ 9.75o/o p.a from L6.It.2022 till the date of realization;

¶80

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated andmortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA towards the realization of the debt due.

¶81

The Applicant bank is also entiUed

¶82

:. to proceed against the person

¶83

.ir.and properties of defendant No.3 &4 and properties of defendant

¶84

' ,?1., no.1 a[dr2 firmS to'itards realization of the debt due. ?7 rDP \l?5^o'i[ 7ll

¶85

t- _!lf

¶86

(oA. No.37sl2022 )

¶87

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

¶88

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶89

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶90

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶91

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d day of Aprit,2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ffi%
dF" e$
ir * 2 2 RpR zrzs *
iL-
i:,'r.
^i

¶96

hru"g#k,
^i*,|:nJ*F:^,

¶97

Bank of India v. M S Manchala Wines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M S Manchala Wines

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

Indian Bank versus M/s. Sriram Anand

Sri v B Sreeram versus State Bank of India

Challa Venkateswara Rao versus State Bank of India

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

Mohammed Rahamat Pasha versus Indian Bank

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Unnati Seeds