Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Kunta Raja Govindu and Sons

DRT18 Oct 2023OA/109/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by City Union Bank Ltd. against three defendants for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 54,51,075.86 plus future interest, holding the claim established. The appellant bank was granted permission to proceed against mortgaged property and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Bank allowed to recover total sum of Rs. 54,51,075.86 plus future interest and costs by proceeding against mortgaged and other properties of respondents.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Kunta Raja Govindu and Sons — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2O2g

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.1O9 of 2O23

¶4

Between :

¶5

City Union Bank Ltd, Warangal bra nch, Warangal d istrict, Telangana State, Represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Kunta Raja Govindu & Sons, Represented by its proprietor, Sri Devulapalli Ramesh, s/o Sankaraiah, male, Hindu, aged about 4O years, R/o MrG rr 158/1, Keerthi nagar colony, Geesugonda, Warangal.

¶9

2, Sri Devulapalli Ramesh. s/o Sankaraiah, male, Ilnd-ll^{gguOabout4O years,} R/o MIG II 158/1, Keerthi naga r colony, treesugonda, Warangal.

¶10

Smt Devulapalli Anitha. w/o Sri Devulapalli Ramesh, femal, Hindu, aged about 3i years, , .. R/o MIG II 158/1, ' rt"rti'i-."g.':;i;^y, ' I Geesugonda, Warangat, nts 1 S ,fI Zm r,rrot"# .i-Q.djy

¶11

(oA.No.109 of 2023)

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

For the DeFenda nts

¶15

Smt Laxmi Chaya Ex pa rte

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.54,51,O75.86ps (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Fifty One thousand Seventy five and paise Eighty Six only) i.e, a sum of Rs.41,06,905.83ps with future interest @ 13olo p.a and a sum of Rs.l3,44,I7O.03ps with future interest @ 9,25olo p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule B (item No.3) to OA.

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern and defendant no.2 is sore proprietor and 3'd defendant is wife of 2nd defendant avaired soD rimit of Rs'50'00 rakhs and Emergency credit Line scheme roan of Rs'11'25 rakhs' Defendants r. to 3 executed sanction retter, demand promissory note, retter of continuity, agreement of guarantee, consent letter revivar retter etc. The roan facirities are coraterary secured by way of equitable mortgage of appticiil\ schedule properties. After

¶19

(OA.No.109 of 2023)

¶20

availing the loan facilities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NPA on 03.05.2021 and issued demand notice dated 16.08.2021. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants 1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 31.07.2023.

¶22

Shri I. Krishna Kishore, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked

¶23

as Ex.A.1to A.19.

¶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

Defendants ca[ed absent and set 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.Al to A.1g, In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made

¶28

--.-!-._.-'--

¶29

(OA.No.109 of 2023)

¶30

entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and

¶31

costs.

¶32

B. In the result, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under:

¶33

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a totar sum of Rs.54 ts1.tozs.g6ps (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Fifty one thousand seventy five and paise Eighty Six only) i.e, a sum of Rs.41-,06,905.83ps with future interest @ 73o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.13,44,170.03ps with future interest @

¶34

9'25o/o p'a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶35

The Applicant Bank is entitred to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedure B (item no,3) to oA.

¶36

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

receipt of order.

¶40

L4, Issue Recovery

¶41

(OA. No,109 of 2023)

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the p.A.. transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the l8th day of Oct, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

I KL,E. COPY
,.rrrmlJu

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Kunta Raja Govindu and Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Kunta Raja Govindu and Sons

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Chilmala Krishna

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Saras Enterprises

Mr Anwar Ali Jiwani versus Union Bank of India

Smt Kethavath Maji versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus M/S. Surex Auto Works

City Union Bank Ltd, versus M/S. Sri Venkateswara Motors