Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Paradigm Medivision Private Ltd.

DRT9 Apr 2025OA/389/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues under Term and SOD loans. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amounts along with future interest and costs based on documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,15,39,864.34 under Term Loan and Rs. 1,13,38,139.46 under SOD Loan with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S Paradigm Medivision Private… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE O9TH DAY OF APRIL,²⁰²⁵

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS,),M.A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 389^{OF 2022}

¶4

Canara Ba nk., Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s.Paradigm Medivision^{Private Ltd.,} Rep by Vedprakash VYas, S/o.Biharilal Vyas(Managing^Director) Aged 58 Years, Occ: Business, Regd. Office at D.No.5-5-351136, Plot No.157, Prashanth Nagar, IDA Kukatpally, HYderabad -^500072.

¶8

Vedprakash Vyas, S/o.Biharilal^Vyas, Managing Director M/s.Paradigm Medivision Private^Ltd,, Aged 58 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 2-23)299, Jalavayu Vihar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500085'

¶9

Smt.Jyothi Vyas(Director/Surety), W/o.Vedprakash Vyas, Aged 54 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 2-23J299, Jalavayu Vihar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500085.

¶10

Singh Kumar Piyush, S/o.l B Singh, Aged 40 Years, Occ: Business(Director), R/o.Flat No.202, Ramdev Height, Indralok, Phase 06, Bhayander, East, Thane, Maharashtra - 401105.

¶11

..}/rt..,r.-..^r,.-> ,',,.-.}{-

¶12

¶13

OA.No.389/2022

¶14

G.Venkata Subba Satyanarayana, S/o.Not Known, Aged 62 Years, Occ: Bu siness( Director) R/o.H.No.5-3-32618, Venkatraonagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500019. ......Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant

¶16

: Dr.Shaik Fa heemullah

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,15,39,864.34ps i.e., a sum of Ri.2,OL,724.g8ps under Term Loan(Vehicle) A/c. No.30819910000061 with future interest @11.100/o^p.a. and a sum of Rs.1,13,38,139.46ps under SOD Loan with future interest @11.150/o p.a. from the defendants joinuy and severally from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶21

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper publication, whereas summons served on D4 and 5. They were set ex-parte on 14.03.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined R.Shankar Narayana, Manager as AW-1 and marked 16 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.16.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.^perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants? fu.**

¶26

oA.No.389/2022

¶27

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The^Evidence AFfidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz.,^{Exs. A.1 to} A.16 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the^{claim of} the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I^hold that^the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA^{claim to} the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.389/2022^is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to^{pay to} the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.1,15,39,864.34ps^i.e., a sum of Rs.2,QL,724.88ps under Term^{Loan(Vehicle)} A/c.No.30819910000061 and a sum of Rs.1,13,38,139.46ps under SOD Loan; with^future interest @ 11.10o/o p,a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶32

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 09th day of April, 2025).

¶36

0w""

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/S Paradigm Medivision Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Paradigm Medivision Private Ltd.

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs. Bandi Vijaya

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus G.v.Harinadha Babu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Aleti Sathish Reddy

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Coverit

Punjab National Bank versus Damodhar Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Seven Hills Tar Petro Products LLP.