Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Kambala Srinivas

DRT20 Feb 2025OA/666/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a defaulted loan. Holding the borrower and the collateral manager jointly and severally liable due to default and failure to maintain pledged stock, the court ordered payment of the principal sum with interest. Recovery proceedings were initiated against the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 67,32,970.40 with future interest at 8.75% p.a. simple.

Punjab National Bank versus Kambala Srinivas — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (HonS.), 14.A.

¶2

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 666 OF 2023

¶4

Punjab National Bank Circle SASTRA Hyderabad Regency Plaza, Plot No.3 Maitrivihar Area, Ameerpet Hyderabad. Rep by its chief Manager. ....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kambala Srin ivas S/o K. Venkaiah Aged: 70 years, R/o 11-85, Nalug ugilakala Bhavi Near Gandhi Park H uzu rnagar-508 204 Na lg on da.

¶7

M/s. CGR Collateral Management Ltd. 401-102, 4th Floor, Kl City Tower Ashok Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan-3o2 001.

¶8

.... Defendants.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Kurangi Manoj. Defendants : No representation.

¶10

:: ORDER::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA filed u/s 19 of the Recovery of the Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for recovery of a sum of Rs.67 ,32,970.40Ps from defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally with future interest @10.757o p.a. compounded \i / _;r-.r

¶12

¶13

0A.566/2023

¶14

monthly^{including penal interest al 2o/o from the dateof} Application^{till the date of realisation alongwith costs'}

¶15

According^{to the applicant bank' l"t defendant availeddemand} loan^{(loan against pledgeoF storagereceipt) of Rs'50'00'000/-} from the^{erstwhile United Bank of India' vide sanction letter} dated^{O5.O2 2020 The loan carriesan interest of 8'75o/oQer} annum with^{monthlyrests' The 1st defendant executedall the} requisite^{loan documentsfor the purposeof availing the loan} facility.^{The 1st defendantcommitted default in repayment} since beginning,^{leading to classincationof loan accountas} NPA. Applicant^{bank issued notices recallingthe outstanding} dues on^{25'01'2021 and 12 01 2022'The2nd defendant is a} collateralmanagerforthepledgedstocksbeingsanctionedby the applicant^{bank under a Memorandumof Undertaking(MOU)} dated 13.02.2019'^{In termsof MoU' 2nd defendant is boundto} keep the^{pledgedstocks in safe custody' verification of quantity} and^{quality of pledgedstocks' submittingmonthly stocks} reports wlth^{market valuation'insurance coverage etc During} the inspection^{of the storage godown on 13'06'2020' thebank} staff found^{onty a limited stock worth Rs'22'61 lakhs as on} 18.03.2023.^{Sincethe defendant committeddefault' he ls liable} to pay the^{amount of Rs 67} '32 'g7O^{'4OPs along with interest} @^10.75olo '

¶16

Aneefpasha^{Shaik,Advocatefiled Valakatfor defendant No' 1'} but did^{not choose to flle written statement' leading to} forfeiture of^{filing written statementvide docket orderdated} 29.04.2024.^{DefendantNo 2 was set exparteon 08'042024} for there being^{no representation despit:e summons through} paper publication. 0W"

¶17

oa.566l2O2r

¶18

Applicant Bank examined Tawkeer Hasan, Manager_Law as AW_ 1 and marked 9 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.9.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Whereas, 1'r defendant's right of arguments forfeited vide docket order dated 03.02.2025.^perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the OA claim against defendants 1 and 2?

¶22

As stated supra, while defendant No.1 entered appearance through counsel, did not choose to Rle written statement and thereafter adduce evidence or advance arguments. Whereas, defendant No.2 remained exparte despite summons through paper publication. Under such circumstances, I find that defendant No.1 being the borrower, defendant No.2 being Collateral Manager of the goods stored in its custody are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the applicant bank along with interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.666/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) the Defendants L and 2 are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.67,32,970,40ps with future interest @8.750lo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization:

%o"tt

oA.556/2023

ii) the applicant^{bank is also entitled to proceed} against^{the personand propertiesof the} OefenOants^{for realization of its debt; and}

¶29

iii) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶32

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload^{on Web Portal'}

¶33

(Dictated^{lo the steno' signedandpronouncetlb)'me in lhe open courton lhis the 2tlt' day of} February,2025).

¶34

Sfr'o SHWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Punjab National Bank v. Kambala Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Kambala Srinivas

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

Chavasuresh Babu versus Union Bank of India

Smt Putha Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Industries.

Union Bank of India versus Dakireddy Buchi Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Shri Vardhini Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr.Massa @ Masa Srinivas