Allowed

D Sadanand and others v. Indian Bank

DRT3 Feb 2025SA/389/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Debt Recovery Tribunal case OA No. 389/2024, the bank applicant sought recovery of approximately Rs. 21 Lakhs plus interest against three defendants who defaulted on a term loan secured by property and personal guarantees. The defendants were absent. The Presiding Officer allowed the application, holding the bank established its case through documentary evidence and directed recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 21,38,701/- with future interest at 12.80% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal proper

D Sadanand and others versus Indian Bank — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 3Ro DAy oF FEBRUARY, zozs

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.389 ol2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Mattampally branch, Suryapet, Telangana - 5OB 204. Rep by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Laxmi Ganesh Furniture And Electronics, Situated at H.No.7- 189/1,

¶10

Near Govt. Hospital, Main road, Mattampally village and mandal, Suryapet district, Telangana _ 5OB 204. Represented by its proprietrix

¶11

Mrs. JakkaliJyothi, W/o Jakkalisrinivasu

¶12

Mrs. JakkaliJyothi, w/o JakkaliSrinlvasu, aged 43 years, occ: business,^proprietor of M/s. Laxmi

¶13

Ganesh Furn itu re and Electronics,

¶14

Mr. lakkaliSrinivasu, s/o Lingaiah, aged 45 years, occ: not known,

¶15

defendants 2 and 3 are R/o Behind veterinary Hospital, Mattampally Village and mandal, Su ryapetd ist, Telangana - Defendants -;("r ffi €.$ Counsel for the^p For the Applicant 0 3 Fr8 2025: MVS Prasad For the Defendan rte

¶16

(oA. No.389/202a)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants For recovery of a total sum of Rs.21,3g,701l_ (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thirty Eight thousand Seven hundred and one only) with future interest @ 12.80o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No'2 is sore proprietrix of defendant no.1 firm and defendant no.3 is husband of defendant no.2 and guarantor to the loan avaired. The defendants avaired term roan of Rs.10.00 rakhs in 2074 and executed composite agreement, demand promissory note, general form of guarantee, letter of guarantee and interest agreement and executed memorandum of deposit of titre deeds vide document bearing no.27t6/20r4 dated 2g.0g.2014. The roan amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was enhanced to Rs.16.50 lakhs and renewed the same on 18.12.2019. Again the loan was enhanced to Rs.20.00 lakhs in 2O-ll1ldefendants executed demand promissory note on 22.03. ,"lil^--' ng the loan facility, the defendants failed to corryp'tlptne te fioh,^hence the applicant bank was constrainedfl8 ctffsSvi$B?0f,"ras NpA on 30.04.20 24 and ilts^--'r"(uiJ issueo dem\H-l.oli.; ou,"o o4r.Q!!.2024 rnspite of severat requesrs \s., '. r r rrr,xr2

¶20

(oA.No.389/202a)

¶21

and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶22

Defendants 1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 24.I2.2024.

¶23

Sri A. Shravan Kumar, Asst. Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶26

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

7 ' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.13. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶28

B. In th4 rddEl}hEffiN, oo is allowed with costs, as under: trei,-Derenoffir ur"$,ry and severally liable to pay to the nppr ica[t biri0 ffhoturj ll,, of Rs,21,38,7O1/- (Rupees Twenty

¶29

t'$t,,r*oro'4-Hl

""
{is,i

(oA. No.38e/202a)

One Lakhs Thirty Eight thousand Seven hundred and oneone only) with future interest @ 12.80o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶34

Seven hundred and oneone

¶35

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

12, The Applicant shalt fite a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶39

of receipt of order.

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3dday of Feb, 2025)

¶43

m
(f" $
Hr * 03 rt8
r-i1
,'T.t

¶44

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

DPt-r. lavqlpi i i'' " n

D Sadanand and others v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Sadanand and others v. Indian Bank

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Valluri Dhanunjaya Rao

State Bank of India versus Sri. Bora Swami Naidu

Bharath traders Alam and Jaggary merchants versus Hdfc Bank

K Manohar Reddy versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rise Automobiles

S T Bharanikanth versus Indian Overseas Bank