Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. Power Line Systems

DRT10 Sept 2025OA/554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application for recovery of outstanding dues. The Defendants failed to file a written statement or advance arguments after forfeiting their rights. Relying on unchallenged documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed amount with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.29,20,023.79 with future interest from the date of application till realization; Applicant Bank entitled to costs and recovery proceedings.

Bank of India versus M/S. Power Line Systems — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIG]NAL APPLICATION NO. 554 OF 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

Bank of India Sanjeevareddy Nagar Branch 24/3 RT, 7,t Floor, RlvlK Nilayam Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Hyderabad - 500 081 Rep. by its Constituted Attorney.

¶5

....Applicant.

¶6

And

¶7

M/s. Power Line Systems Rep by its Proprietor Sri K. I\4urali Krishna Mohan Rao Shed No. 74, Type-II Pragathinagar, Industrial Estate Kukatpally, Hydera bad-500 072.

¶8

2, Sri K. Murali Krishna Mohan Rao S/o K. Laxma na Swamy Aged: 58 years, Occ: Business Flat No. 101, Laxmisree Towers ..... Defenda nts.

¶9

Balajinagar Colony, Hyderabad-72.

¶10

Counsel forApplicant : lYr. D. Brahma Reddy. Counsel for Defendants : No representation.

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,20,023.79Ps jointly and severally from the ,fury4n*

¶13

IV'$"

¶14

oa-ss412024

¶15

defendants^{(Rs.26,36,461.31Ps with interest@11'50o/oPer} annum with^{monthly restsplus29o penal interest towardsCash} Credit A/c^{No.863730110000018 and Rs.2,83,562'48Ps with} interest @9.25olo^{per annum with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal} interest towards GECL^{A/c No.863770410000078and 86377-} 0410OOOO87) from^{the date of Applicationtill the date of} realisation along^{with costs.}

¶16

The averments of^{applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that} defendant No.1^{represented by its Proprietor defendantNo2} availed cash^{credit facilities of Rs.15 lakhsvide sanctionletter} dated 24.08.2009^{and executed requisiteloandocuments} agreelng to the terms^{and conditions stipulatedtherein'The} cash credit facilities^{wereenhancedto Rs.25 lakhs in 2015'} Thereafter, defendants^{availed GECLof Rs.5,00,000/-in 2020} and Star GECL of^{RS.2,5O,OOO/-in 2021duly executingthe} required documents.^{Defendantsdefaulted in repayment,} resulting in classification of^{loan accounts as NPA,followed by} demand notice dated^{20.01.2024 and legalnoticedated} 19.02.2024, where after^{defendants regularisedthe accounts'} The accounts were once^{againclassified as NPA on 28.09'2024} due to further default in^{repayment,followed by anotherlegal} notice dated 25.70.2024.^{Defendants' business premiseswere} closed. As the defendants^{failed to clear the dues,the present} OA is filed for recovery^{of outstanding dues.}

¶17

Though Mr. V. Ravi Kumar,^{filed Vakalaton behalf of the} defendants, he remained^{absent thereafter.Nor did the} defendants choose^{to file written statement.Defendantsright of} filing written statement^{was forfeited vide dockg! order dated} ro.o6.2o2s. OY"*o

¶18

¶19

0A.ss412024

¶20

Applicant Bank examined Ch. Venkata Rama Rao, Credit Manager as AW-1 and marked 50 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.50.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the applicant bank. perused the material placed on record. Right of defendants to advance arguments was forfeited on 05.08.2025 for there being no representation.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank would submit that the defendants not only committed default in repayment of loans but also failed to pursue the OA proceedings by way of filing written statement, adducing evidence and advancing arguments. Therefore, defendants have nothing to say against the OA claim preferred by the applicant bank and the same remain unopposed. Accordingly, applicant bank proved its claim against the defendants on the strength of Exhibits A.1 to A.50 filed through the evidence affidavit of AW.1. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA claim in the interest of justice.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants?

¶25

As stated supra, the defendants failed to file written statement, adduce evidence and advance arguments; inspite of sufficient opportunities. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in documents viz., Exs.A.1 to

¶26

oA.ss4l2024

¶27

unchallenged and un-rebutted.^{Hence, I hold that defendants} are liable to^pay the^{claim made by the Applicant Bank in the} O.A with future^{interestand costs.}

¶28

o In the result, the^{present Original Application No.554/2024is} allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) defendants are^jointly and^{severally liable to} pay a total sum of Rs.29,20,023.79Ps^jointly and severallY from the^defendants (Rs.26,36,461.31Ps and Rs.2,83,562.48Ps) to the applicant bank with^{future interest} @9.25olo^{per annum simplefrom the date of} application till the date of^realization;

¶30

ii) the applicant bank is also^{entitled to proceed} against the^person and^{propertiesof the} defendants for realization of^{its dues;and}

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶32

The Applicant Bank is directed^{to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} From the date of receipt of^{this Order'}

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶34

L2. Communicate a copy of^{this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload on official Web^Portal.

¶35

(Dictatcd to the stcno. signed and pronounced by^{rne in the opencourt on this the l0rr'} day of September, 2025).

¶36

K-d

¶37

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. M/S. Power Line Systems

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. Power Line Systems

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Laxmi Durga Wines

Canara Bank versus Ganapathiraju Praneel Varma

Canara Bank versus Boya Moolinti Parvathamma

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Standard Mobiles

Kiran Kumar Kondaru versus Hdfc Bank

Chand Pasha versus M/s.Cholamandal Investments and Finance Co.Ltd