Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S. Sri Chaitany Spoorthi Offset

DRT14 May 2025OA/98/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA 98 of 2024, I Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad allowed an application filed by Indian Bank against a proprietary concern and its proprietor for recovery of an outstanding loan amount of Rs. 34,08,584.56 along with interest, costs and permission to proceed against secured assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Order directing payment of Rs. 34,08,584.56 with interest, costs and recovery certificate. Permission to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Chaitany Spoorthi Offset — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14rh DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.98 ot 2024

Between:

Indian Bank,

Hydershahkote Branch, Main road, Hydershahkote post, Gandipetmandal, Hyderabad - 500 091. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Sri ChaitanySpoorthi Offset Printers, A proprietary concern, Represented by its Proprietor, SmtDokkuVijaya Lakshmi,

¶11

H. No. 1 1-5-417 / 2l A, Red hills,

¶12

Lakdikapool, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶13

SmtDokkuvijaya Lakshmi, w/o Dokku Raghu Ramaiah, aged about 48^years, occ: business, R/o H.No.1-35-32, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar colony, Gamdhamguda, Hydershahkote, Golconda, Hyderabad - 500 091.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Pa -qQ EIfN
For the Applicant ffi ri V. SethuMadhava Rao
&s
For the Defenda
,B
E 14fiAY2m *
'#-- ?
wd

¶16

(oA.No.e8/202a)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against Defendants^for recovery of a total sum of Rs.34,O8,584.56ps^(Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four and paise Fifty six only) i.e.,

¶19

a) a sum of Rs.27,65,328.31ps under cash credit loan^with subsequent interest @ 160lo p.a^(@14% + 2o/op.a^penal) with monthly rests from the date of OA till the date of realization;

¶20

b) a sum of Rs.3,98,533.25ps under GECLS with subsequent interest @ 13.25olo p.a (@ lt.21o/o + 2olo^penal) with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶21

c) a sum of Rs.2,44,723l- under FITL account with subsequent interest @ 14.600/o p.a (@ t2.6Oo/o + 2o/o penal) with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ; and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed cash credit limit of rs.20.00 lakhs on 01.03.2018 an owledgement of sanction letter, demand promi 1*notEffiro'ffi I letter of hypothecation, The F' ' :9,aa$.

¶23

defenda nts availed IND GEC covid 19 loan for a sum of H^{1 4 ttiAY M5} :,

¶24

W'-"*Y

¶25

(oA.No.98/2024)

¶26

Rs.4.00 lakhs and executed necessary documents. Subsequently the defendants also availed Rs,1.81 lakhs on 28.06.2021 and executed demand promissory note. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 20.06.2022 and legal notice dated 02.06.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶27

Counsel for Defendants No.1& 2 called absent and set exparte on 04.04.2025.

¶28

Sri A. VidyaSagar, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.27.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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?

¶31

Defendants No.1& 2 remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant -Qfif,=gW$qfficial of the Applicant Bank was examined.ffiS";n':;&. '; documents as Ex.A1 to A.27. In established

¶32

view or ,f, !0o,1,u, ilrljor#., L"[00,,.."t Bank has %**#

¶33

(oA.No.98/202a)

¶34

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.

¶35

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶36

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.34,08,584.56ps (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four and paise Fifty six only) i.e.,

¶37

a) a sum of Rs.27,65,328.31ps under cash credit loan with subsequent interest @ l4o/o p.a from the date of OA till the date of realization;

¶38

b) a sum of Rs.3,98,533.25ps under GECLS with subsequent interest @ 11.25olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶39

c) a sum of Rs.2,44,723l- under FITL account with subsequent interest @ 12.600/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶40

q The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule "A &B" toOAt the debt due; ,.&

¶41

H * ltxNzw { W,,**##

¶42

(oA.No.e8l2024)

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of May, 2025)

¶49

sd/-

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

ffiB<br>r, ,;. !ra* 1 I I{AI A25 ri*

¶52

[f"f;2
Asst
DRT.', HYDERAfiTC

Indian Bank v. M/S. Sri Chaitany Spoorthi Offset

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S. Sri Chaitany Spoorthi Offset

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Subhiksha Enterprises

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammed Masiuddin

State Bank of India versus Sri. Abothu Satya Prasad Babu

Mr Nerangal Nagaraj versus Punjab National Bank

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, versus M/S.. Suraksha Engineering Works

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ramanarao Nibhanapuri