Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Swastik Enterprises

DRT31 Jan 2025OA/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues and interest from three defendants who availed term loans and defaulted, holding them jointly and severally liable based on unchallenged documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.55,80,352/- with future interest; recovery certificate issued; costs awarded.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Swastik Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL'iIAT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS^{THE 3l.t DAY OF JANUARY,2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH,^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATIONNO. 94 OF 2024}

¶4

Bank of Ba^roda Gandhi Nagar^Branch Hyderabad. Rep by its Chief Manager. "^Applicant'

¶5

And

¶6

I'l/s. Swastik^Enterprises ReP bY its^Partners t4r M. Raghuthom^{Reddy and} Sri M. Ramesh,^{Reqd. Office} Plot No. 1/6,^{2A,Road No.15} IDA Nacha^{ra m, HYderabad-76'} 2. Mr. Ragh uthom^Reddy S/o Sri 14.^BhashiReddY Occ: Business,^{Rlo 2-42} GunturPalle^Post RamanujaPuram VenkataPur, Wa^{ra ngal} Telanga na-506 345. 3. Mr. M. Ramesh S/o Sri Miralla^Sammaiah R/o H. No.8-3-61 Madikonda,^Hanmakonda Waranga l, ielangana-506142. Defendants' : Mr. M. Srinivas. Counsel for Applicant counsel for l't Defendant^{: Mr. C.D.S.B VenkataRao'} Defendants 2 and 3 :Exparte. i*u-.' / ./' --,.t, ,/ 5'

¶7

oA.9412024

¶8

:: ORDER ::

¶9

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery oF a total sum of Rs.55,80,352/- (i.e. Rs.26,15,232l- towards Account No.75790600000283, Rs.6,95,321l- towards Account No.75790600000038, Rs.20,88,823/- towards Account No. 75790600001171 and Rs.1,80,976l- towards Account No. 75790600001168 with further interests @10.500/o, 10.450/o, 10.85o/o and 100/o p.a. respectively including penal interest of 2olo per annum with monthly rests) from the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally with further interest as applicable to the respective loan account from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶10

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that defendant No.1 represented by its^partners defendants No.2 and 3 availed a term loan facility of Rs.33,OO,OOO/- vide sanction letter dated 20.11.2019 and executed all the requisite loan documents duly agreeing the terms and conditions set out therein. Subsequently, defendants availed CGTMSE loan of Rs.30,00,000/- on 07.03.2020. The loans were restructured on 26.03.2021 under different heads i.e., Cash Credit Working Capital, Term Loan Working Capital, Working Capital Term Loan Fresh and Funded Interest Term Loan respectively. Defendants executed the loan documents of restructured loans agreeing to the terms and conditions as specified therein. However, defendants committed default in repayment of the loans. Accordingly, applicant bank classified the loan accounts as NpA and issued legal notice dated 08.09.2023 demanding for discharging the outstanding dues. The total outstanding dues

!o.'...s

oa.9412024

relating to all the loan accounts work out to^{Rs.55,80,352l-.} Hence the present OA.

¶15

Though defendant No.1 entered appearance through^its counsel, it did not choose to file written statement.^{Hence lt's} right to file written statement was forfeited vide^docketorder dated 13.09.2024. Whereas defendants 2 and 3 were^set exparte vide docket order dated 16.07.2024 for^non- representation despite serving summons.

¶16

Applicant Bank examined Bhukya Rajesh, Branch^{Manager, as} AW-1 and marked 32 documents through^{him as Ex. A.1 to Ex.} A.32.

¶17

DeFendant's right to adduce evidence was^forfeitedon 20.12.2024 for non-representation.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant^prayed that^orders may be passed based on records. Defendant's^right to^advance arguments was forfeited on 2L.O7.2025 for^{non-representation.} Perused the material^placed on^record.

¶19

The^point that arises for consideratlon^is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank^{is entitled} for the OA claim against^the Defendants 1to 3^?

¶21

As stated supra, 1't defendant borrower^{representedby2nd} defendant has not filed^{written statement, adduced evidence or} advanced oral arguments. Under^{such circumstancesthe} Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled^{with the recltals in} X'!5

¶22

oA.9412024

¶23

documents viz., Exs.A.1 to^{A,32 marked on behalf of the} Applicant Bank remains unchallenged and^{unrebuttedand} accordingly clinches the claim of^{the Applicant Bank against the} Defendants. Hence I found that defendants^{1 to 3 are jointly} and severally liable to^pay the claim^{made by the Applicant} Bank in the O.A. with future interest^{and costs}

¶24

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.94/2024is} allowed as under:^-

¶25

i) defendants 1 to 3 are^jointly and^severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.55,80,352/under different loan accounts to the applicant bank with future interest @l0o/o^{p.a. simple} from the date of application till the date of rea lization;

¶26

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

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open couft on this the 3l't day ofJanuary. 2025).

¶31

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Swastik Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Swastik 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

Bismi Traders versus Perinthalmanna Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Asil Mohammed versus Federal Bank

Mohd Asif Rangoonwala and Others versus Axis Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Kukalakuntla Lahari

Bank of Baroda versus Mohammed Aslam Khan

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Gayatri Traders