Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Radha Krishna Farms

DRT18 Feb 2025OA/40/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed by Karnataka Bank Ltd for recovery of loan dues under SARFAESI proceedings, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad examined the documents and averments. The court held that the bank established its claim and allowed the application, directing the defendants to pay the principal amount along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; defendants directed to pay Rs. 2,21,34,845.02 with future interest and costs; recovery certificate issued.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Radha Krishna… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2025

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.4O of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Branch at D.No.11-4 -3/t/t, Ground floor, Nehru naqar main Road, Khammam, Telarigana Represented by its GpA holder

¶6

Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Radha Krishna Farms, Peruvancha, Kallurumandal,

¶9

Khammam, Telangana State _ 507 2Og. rep by its^prop. Mr. K. Radha Krishna

¶10

Sri Konda pallyRadhakrishna, S/o Sri K. Joga Rao, aged 46 yrs, Ucc: business, H.No.1_393, Peruvancha, Kallurumandal,

¶11

Khammam, Telangana - 507 2Og.

¶12

SmtKondapallyLeelavathy, w/o K. Radha Krishna, aged 42 yrs, occ: housewife, R/o t-t.trto. f _SgS, Peruvancha, Kallurumandal, Khammam, Telangana - 507 2Og.

¶13

SmtKondapallySrinivasa Rao, S/o K. Joga Rao, aged 43 years, Occ: business, R/o H.No.1-393, Peruvancha, Kallurumandal Khammam, Telan Defendants Counsel for the part For the Applicant sri Rama Rao For the Defendants Rajendra Prasad

¶14

loA.276/2024)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,2,21,34,g45.O2ps (Rupees Two Crores Twenty One Lakhs Thirty Four thousand Eight hundred Forty Five and paise two only) i.e.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.1,11,1g,g63/_ towards term loan facility _Iwith futureinterest @ 11'150/o p.a from date of apprication ti, the date of realization ;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.96,68,6g0.o2ps under term roan facirity_Ilwith futureinterest @ 11'150/o p.a from date of apprication ti, the date of realization ;

¶19

c) A sum of Rs.13,46,302/_ under term loan facility_Illwith future interest @ 11.15% p.a from date of apprication tiil the date of realization;

¶20

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

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor oF defendant no.1 firm and defendants 3 & 4 stood as guarantors avaired term roan_1 of Rs.87.00 of Rs.1,03,00,000/_ and Rs.10.00

¶22

lakhs tow 5[.2017.^{The defendantsexecuted}

¶23

loa n docu^;ffi i', .Agreement,^{term loan agreement,}

¶24

T"'?'/ffi'W"*n I ili; 1'I

¶25

¶26

"ft;.,,*dsl,,' ;;j-__";/

¶27

(oA.216120241

¶28

letter of authority, consent letter, General power of attorney for book debts on 21.r7.20t7. The defendants deposited their originar titre deeds of immovabre properties with bank towards coilaterar security and created regd mortgage in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 31.03.2021 and initiated SARFAESI proceedings dated 31.12.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

sri R. Rajendra^prasad fired vakarath for defendants but not fired written statement.

¶30

Sri S.M, ArifHussain, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhrbited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.49.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

prayed for?

¶35

Cou vakalath but failed to file WS. To subr rtiate Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the

¶36

¶37

App ca nt Bar 1 and he exhibited relevant documents .,,;i..x 3

¶38

...iir

¶39

(oA.276120241

¶40

as Ex.Al to A.49. 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.

¶41

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,21,34,845.O2ps (Rupees Two crores Twenty one Lakhs Thirty Four thousand Eight hundred Forty Five and paise two only) i.e.,

¶42

a) A sum of Rs.1,11,19,863/_ towards term loan facility _I with future interest @ 11.1S% p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶43

b) A sum of Rs.96,68,680.02ps under term roan facirity_Il with future interest @ 11.15olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶44

c) A sum of Rs.13,46,302/_ under term loan facility_III with futureinterest @ 11.15o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶45

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶46

and as described in the schedule to OA

towa due.

u^lotl|frix* W,"*s,9

(oA.21,6/2024]|

The Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribe ir,,i. it by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open courr on "^{1ii, liv."ird:;#;"d}

¶57

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

v\1,'

¶59

'l,df"t,^HYri,?il\4D.

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Radha Krishna Farms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Radha Krishna Farms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/s. Ssr Hospitals

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Rishabh Plastic

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vvflex Pack Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mysha Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Htc Diet Corporation Private Limited