Allowed

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Tirumala Enterprises

DRT22 Apr 2025OA/471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank to recover a sum of Rs.6,84,04,287.52 from four defendants jointly and severally with future interest and costs. The defendants remained ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.6,84,04,287.52 with future interest @10.65p.a. and costs; recovery certificate issued against property.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus M/S Tirumala… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No; 471 OF 2024

¶4

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd., Acting in Its Capacity of Trustee of Pegasus Group Thirty Nine Trust 1, Having Corporate Office at 55-56, 5th Floor, Free Press House, Narlman Point, Mumbai - 4OO02L and one of its Representative Office at Flat No.1C, First Floor, HMH Plaza, New No.56(o) 105, G.N.Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s.Tirumala Enterprises., Rep by its Proprietor Mr.Ch.Pandurangam, D.No.1-7-10, Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, NBK Estate, NR Golconda X Road, Hyderabad - 500020.

¶8

Mr. Pandrangam Chedudupu, S/o.Mr. Raghupathy Chedudupu, Aged 46 Years, Gender: Male, Occ: Proprietor, R/o.Flat No.203, Satya Surya Apt., Street No.9, Karthlkeya Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal, Hyderabad - 500076.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Vinoothna Pittie's Majesty, H.No.4-3-448 to 460 and 4-3-465 to 468, Plot TSLR No.2, 5 and 6, 4th Floor, Gopal Bagh, Troop Bazar, Sultan Bazar, Bank Street, Hyderabad - s000es.

OWn

oa.No.477l2O24

Also at:Dlo.l-7 -t0, Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, NBK Estate, NR Golconda x Road, Hyderabad - 500020.

¶15

Mrs.Ch.Devakamma, W/o. Mr. Raghupathy Chedudu^pu, Aged 68 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.203, Satya Surya Apts, Street No.g, Karthlkeya Naga r, Nacharam, U ppal, Hyderabad- 500076.

¶16

Mrs.Tummala Manjula, W/o. lvlr.Laxman Rao Tummala, Aged 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.203, Satya Surya Apts, Street No.9, Karthikeya Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal, H ydera bad^- 5000 76.

¶17

... Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Applica nt : M/s.G.Bhanu Murthy

Defe n da nts

: Ex-parte

:: qLLLL ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.6,84 ,04,287 .52ps as on 02.08.2024 from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @10.650/0 p.a. at monthly rests along with interest @2% p.m. from the date of applicatlon till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶23

Summons served on D1 to 4 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 21.01.2025 as called absent and no representation. Nt**

¶24

oA.NO.47u2024

¶25

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined Mahesh Kumar, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 12 documents through him as Ex. A.1to Ex.A.12.

¶27

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. Perused the written arguments and material placed on record.

¶28

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶29

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶30

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.12 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.

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.47t/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶32

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.6,84,O4,287.52ps as on 02.08.2024 with future interest @10.650lo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule /wo"*

¶34

oa,No,47tl2o24

¶35

¶36

annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶37

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶38

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d Day ofApril,2025).

¶42

,49':,',u*b / /./ '\Y" &A[4ESHWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Tirumala Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Tirumala Enterprises

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 Jhansi Garikipati Rep by her Gpa Holder G Adiseshaiah versus Hdfc Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aqua Steel

Yes Bank Limited versus Bhupathi Chandu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sanjeev Katiyar

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs.P Geethanjali

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals.