Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Vishnu Sai Enterprises

DRT4 Apr 2025OA/73/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of Rs.32,07,854.48 with interest against a proprietary concern and its proprietor who denied execution of documents but failed to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.32,07,854.48 with interest and recover refusal certificate to be issued; applicant entitled to costs.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Vishnu Sai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 4rH DAY oF APRTL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.73 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Maredpally branch, Secunderabad. Telangana state Represented by its GPA and Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Vishnu Sai Enterprises, Prop: Mr. SunnapuSrinivasa Rao, Plot no.27, H. No.5-5-35/179, Prashanthinagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 072.

¶11

Mr. SunnapuSrinivasa Rao, s/o Late DalayyaSunnapu, aged major, male,

¶12

H.no.B-3- 164 /C/23, B. Sankala Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad-18.

¶13

[16" ^
Also at:
tv &b

Plot no.27, H.no. 5-5-35/179, .: * otAPR2ffi --a rrrr :
Prashanthinagar, Kukatpally, '!^
^+
Balanagar Mandal,
Hyderabad - 5OO 072. endants
(,t."..- -,*"f:1. ,#
for the Parties:the Parties:Parties:
Applicant Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:the Parties:Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Ms. D. Naga Sirisha

(oA.No.7312023)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against^{DeFendantsFor} recovery of a total sum of Rs.32,O7,854.48ps^(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Four^and paise Forty eight only) with future interest @ 11.50% p.a with monthly rests from 16.01.2023 till the date of realization.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a^proprietary concern^{representedby} defendant no.2 as its^proprietor availed term^loan of^{Rs.19.00 lakhs} and cash credit limit of Rs.5.00 lakhs for^purchase of^machineryand executed demand^promissory note dated 13.10.2015,^demand promissory note, term loan agreement, letter of undertaking, hypothecation of book debts, letter of hypothecation and letter of consent cum authorization dated 13.10.2015. The defendant^no.1 availed term loan -II and also enhanced the cash^{credit by Rs.4.60} lakhs and term loan -III of Rs.7.50 lakhs vide letter^dated 29.09.2018. The defendants also availed^WCTL of^{Rs.5.B5 Iakhs} vide letter dated 20.07.2020 and executed demand^{promissorynote,} letter of undertaking etc.

¶23

It is submi plicant bank that the Defendants have availed pff5 and failed to keep up the ir L,, repayment schbdtle, as the * nt was classified as NPA on 14.06.202r ,e ,rr0"U $P&'3H. ite of demands made by :-n$ ,C .. A ^_tt (&,n'

¶24

(oA.No,73l2023)

¶25

Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.32,O7,854.48ps^(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Four and paise Forty eight only) with future interest @ 11.50o/o^p.a with monthly rests from 16.01.2023 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶26

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and hypothecation of machinery, It is submitted by the defendants that they were regular in repaying the loan amount and denied the classification of account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines. It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 executed loan documents which were blank papersand contended that the Applicant bank took over the car and sold for a lesser value and contended that the OA is neither maintainable nor tenable. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶27

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly s P. Jagannadha Rao, Chief Manager as AW.1 and th ocuments as Ex.A.1 to A.34. As against {;

¶28

tftis, t choose to adduce any evidence on their JLil tentions and also did not choose to cross ti?

¶29

(oA.No.73l2023)

¶30

examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief^{Evidence. Inspiteof} repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file^evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit^was closed on 24.02.2025.

¶31

I have perused the documents^placed on record.

¶32

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶33

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has^proved its claim as madeⁱⁿ OA against the defendants^?

¶34

ii) To what relief ?

¶35

Point No.i):

¶36

As^per the documents filed by the Applicant^{Bank and also as per the} admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement,^{it is} very clear that the defendants have availed^loan from the^Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts^{paid by the} defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement^{of accountfiled by} Applicant Bank. The defendants have not^placed any^material documents to show their bonafides for establishing^{that the car was} taken over and sold for lesser value by the.Applicant^bank.

¶37

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to^give evidence^to

¶38

r liability is less than the amount mentionedⁱⁿ documents filed for establishing that^the belonging to defendant no.2. Under^such of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to 4

¶39

(oA.No.73l2023)

¶40

A.34 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶43

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.32,07,854.48ps (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Four and paise Forty eight only) with future interest @ 11.50o/o p.afrom 16.01.2023ti11 the date of realization;

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

11, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

nicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on
w , 2025)
^$ lri,r^
i,Y .:, sd/_
i
O q APR ?,$[ (G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
' ,r':
'nr@ 5

¶50

sd/_

¶51

(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Vishnu Sai Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Vishnu Sai Enterprises

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

mr sanjay kumar agarwal versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Kishan Sudeer Singh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Pilla Krishna Mohan

Bank of Baroda versus Allianza Distributors

Union Bank of India versus M/S. S S Equipments

Ram Mohan Vadnala versus Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. Ltd.