Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr Kothakapu Manjula

DRT9 Feb 2023OA/114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India. The court held that the bank established its claim and entitled the bank to recover the outstanding loan amount, future interest, and costs from the defendant.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.23,07,974.30 with future interest @ 18% p.a. from date of application.

Union Bank of India versus Mr Kothakapu Manjula — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 9rH DAy oF FEBRUARv, zo2g

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.l14 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Bhagiratha colony branch, Mahabubnagar, Represented by its Manager And Principal officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SmtKothakapu Manjula, w/o Surendhar Reddy, aged major, occ: business, No.402, Raghavendra residency, near Mahabubnagar grammar school, Bhagiratha colony, Mahabubnagar, TS - 509 001.

¶10

Also at

¶11

H.No.3-26, Karvena village, Boothpur (Mandal), Mahabubnagar District, TS - 509 001.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counselforthe Parties:
,rrr;:iEfE
For the Applicant : E 'l<br>Sri P. Balaji i/ $-
'
For the Defendant : Exparte i! * -
" iil -,*i oI trn ?[n ..;:i.i-'i
oRDER 'a . ..: ..!

¶14

o*",*lffigq

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present O o*",*lffigq recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,O7,974.3ops^(Rupees Twenty

¶16

(OA.No.114 of 2022)

¶17

three lakhs Seven thousand Nine hundred Seventy four and paise thirty only) with future interest @ 18o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed term loan facility with a tune of Rs.31.00 lakhs in 2OL7 for purchase of AGRO 4000 Self Loading concrete Mixer. The defendant also availed term loan of Rs.1,98,000/- for purchase of stocks and was secured by hypothecation of assets. The second term loan facility was primarily secured by hypothecation of stocks and receivables and the defendant executed agreement for vehicle loan, demand promissory note, letter of continuity and various other documents. After availing the loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued demand notice on 19.11.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA. ,,.^^,

¶19

himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documentS;: marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9,

¶20

(OA.No.114 of 2022)

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

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?

¶23

The defendant was 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.9. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant^{Bank has established} their claim made in the OA against the^Defendant and^{hence the} Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the^{claim madein the OA with} future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the^present OA^is allowed^{with costs, as under:}

¶25

The Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant^{Bank a} total^{sum of} Rs.23,O7,974.30ps^(Rupees Twenty three^{lakhs Seven} thousand Nine hundred Seventy four and^paise thirty^only) with future interest @ 18o/o^p.afrom date of application^till realization r:a.,..

¶26

r:a.,..
,
: . .1.
,,,-:..i.
'
'jr
;.1 ij
o $ FiB ?m -i;i
E-'rl
F,:*t", i
,*rmt#

¶27

(OA.No.114 of 2022)

¶28

i) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the^gth day of Feb., ZO23)

¶34

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESID!NG OFFICER

¶35

*
f.,. s q

¶36

TRUE.COPY ,i:l'arwv

¶37

Union Bank of India v. Mr Kothakapu Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr Kothakapu Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) versus M/s Singh Dairy and Others

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) versus M/s Multi Developer and Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Ravis Mini Rice Mill and Others

Union Bank of India versus Pavan Sai Plastic Traders

State Bank of India versus Messers Kedar Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Aamesh Enterprises, through Its Proprietor Shri. Dharmesh S/O. Vimal Kochar