Allowed

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Sairam Brick Industries

DRT29 May 2025OA/480/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 29,84,940.43 plus interest. The court held that the bank established its claim against the borrower and guarantor through the examination of a bank officer and exhibited documents, declaring the defendants jointly liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 29,84,940.43 plus interest @ 17.10% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sairam Brick… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 29rH DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.48O ol 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

The KarurVysya Bank Ltd, Warangal, Hanumakonda branch, D.No.,1-7-1187/t, Dr. V.S. Reddy Complex, Main road, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Telangana state Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sairam Brick Industries, Represented by its sole proprietor, Mr. Dumpala Ramesh, S/o Ilaiah, H. No.4- 1-298, Kotturulenda, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 001.

¶10

Mr. Dumpala Ramesh,
s/o Dumpalallaiah, major,
occ: business, H.No.5-11-341/1,
Near thotabadi 2nd gate,
Hanamkonda, Warangl - JU_-tIrrJ... --;<br>,{.1, ... .. . I :::.'-:,.'.
j s r. .. ,-jr -+
3. MunigalaSurender Rao, r.;r '.t i' '",f'
s/o Rama Rao, major,
'business,l, "i,
H.No.,5-11-34U1, N
$hotlBadi
2nd gate, Hanamkonda
Warangal- 506 001. nda nts
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant nka Jagannadham
For the Defendants Expa rte

¶11

(OA.No.480 of 2024)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,84,94o.43ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred forty and paise forty three only) with subsequent interest @ 17.10olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶14

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a Proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. The defendants 1 represented by defendant no.2 availed SOD facility of Rs.15,00 lakhs and executed demand^promissory notes, OD /

¶15

term loan agreement etc. The defendant no.2 deposited the original sale deed bearing no.705212011 dated 09.11.2011 by creating equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned^properties. On 22.01.20L5, the loan was renewed and the working capital was renewed from Rs.20.00 lakhs to Rs.25.00 lakhs and executed necessary documy)lElASSr_ availing the loan facilities, the /1.. -.\ defendants faileU. tb':cemply rms of sanction, hence the !? ';!; applicant barli'1t'fassifiea,r'ne acJd&,it as NPA on 26.09.2023^and notice was $r"o^{bfl frf:hffhzl.fr$ort"or severat requestsand} ' ..2 B.,a$f" -"W - .^.,.:.

¶16

(OA.No.480 of 2024)

¶17

demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA,

¶18

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 20.05.2025.

¶19

Sri P.N.S.V. ChalapathiRao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.29.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶22

Defendants remainedexparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.29. 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 entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs,

¶23

B. is allowed with costs, as under:
*
a-.I
a.n:

¶24

(oA.No.480 of 2024)

¶25

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs,29,84,940.43ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred forty and paise forty three only) with subsequent interest @ 17.10olo p.a from date of applicationtill the date of realization.

¶26

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶27

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

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

¶29

12, The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶30

13, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly,

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by-her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thrs the 29th day of May, rO25) ,4::i.

¶33

6rr.r. *
'l/7
r..
,a'_ .. .' ,
..: 'U

¶34

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) T#uE ESIDING OFFICER (1,,.s. nqi.1, HyoERqgAD. 4

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Sairam Brick Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Sairam Brick Industries

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

Ande Hari Krishna versus Icici Home Finance

K Madhava Reddy versus Canara Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Jagdish Singh

State Bank of India versus Mr. Patsamatla Venkata Rama Raju

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Shabir Ahmad Qazi

Kothakonda Saritha versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.