Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Svk Industries

DRT9 Dec 2022OA/202/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debts Recovery Trial, a single judge of the DRT at Hyderabad allowed an Origin Application filed by Union Bank of India against two Defendants representing a manufacturing unit and a co-obligant, establishing the validity of the loan claim and ensuing relief. The reda

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay principal sum of Rs. 21,87,228.74 with future interest @ 11% p.a. Bank entitled to proceed against secured properties and personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Svk Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 9rH DAy oF DECEMBER, zoz2

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND/ PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.2O2 ot 2OZ2

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, 7 Tombs road, Tolichowki branch, Hyderabad. Telangana. Represented by its Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. SVK Industries Represented by its^proprietor Mrs. Polneni Kavitha,

¶10

w/o Mr. P. Srinivas Rao,

¶11

aged major, occ: business, A-30/7 / part, IDA Kukatpalty,

¶12

Quthbullapur, Hyderabad - 55.

¶13

Sri P. Srinivas Rao,

¶14

s/o Papa Rao, aged major,

¶15

occ: business, A-30/7 / part, IDA Kukatpally, euthbullapur, Hyderabad - 55.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal

Exparte

ORDER

Applicant Bank fil* 0^g 0EC 2[2

¶24

of a total S.,,uqy r,.'t.t'l

¶25

present OA against Defendants for Rs.21,87,229.7 4ps (Rupees Twenty

¶26

(oA.No.202l2022)

¶27

One Lakhs Eighty Seven thousand Two hundred Twenty Eight and paise Seventy four only) wiih future interest @ 11olo p.aplus 2o/o penal charges from 02.06.2022 till the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated machinery and mortgaged property as described in the schedule ,.A & 8,, to OA.

¶28

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a manufacturing unit represented by its proprietor availed term loan facility of Rs.35.00 lakhs and also secured overdraft facility of Rs.2,00 lakhs on 10.01.2018. Defendant no.2 stood as co-obrigant to the loan transaction. The sanctioned rimits are coflateraly secured by equitabre mortgage of schedule mentioned property. To secure the roan facirities extended by Applicant Bank, the defendants deposited the tifle deed bearing document no.LL457/2017 0f sRoQuthubuilapur with an intention to create equitabre mortgage as a security. After avairing the roan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 08.09.2021 and issued regar noticeon 20.04.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

.:-.. ., r^. r.1,. . q:,- .. 3. Defendants were ca'llFd absent ,r.a l set exparte on L5.LL.2022. ,\t .,4 AOm r:^{: L;' Cti{d "l :'}

¶30

-:.::

¶31

loA.No.2o2l2o22l

¶32

Shri Abdul Aziz Mohd, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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?

¶35

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, oFficial of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.19. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established 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.

¶36

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

¶37

The. re jointly and severally liable to pay to the .;," AppliCant Bank-;a total sum of Rs.21,87,228.74ps (Rupees fs.$'s^?88. i;i s Eighty Seven thousand Two hundred

¶38

(oA.No.202/2022)

¶39

Twenty Eight and paise Seventy four only) with future interest @ 11% p.a from 02.06.2022 till realization.

¶40

i) The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the

¶41

hypothecated machinery and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

ii) the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of Defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

iii) The Applicant Bank is entiUed to the costs of the OA.

¶44

iv) The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

by tr_er, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open 2022)

¶48

sdl(6. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER TRUE^qoqY ;--,Sm;9 DRi,.^HYDERA3AO.

Union Bank of India v. Ms Svk Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Svk Industries

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

Shri Ashish So Arun Kumarwar versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

State Bank of India versus Gautam Kumar and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sidhi Vinayak Vision and Others

K G Bhingradiya Vidayalay and Ors. versus Varthana Finance Private Limited

Rajesh Prasad Singh versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Suraka Educational Society