Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Pavan Sai Plastic Traders

DRT9 Feb 2023OA/115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 35,05,139.22 along with future interest and costs against the defaulted borrowers and guarantor, who were adjudged absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 35,05,139.22 with future interest at 18% p.a.; Bank proceeds against mortgaged property and Defendants' assets; Recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Pavan Sai Plastic Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I ATHYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE^grHDAy oF FEBRUARv, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.115 ol2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Bhagirath colony, Mahabubnagar, Telangana state Represented by its Manager And Principal officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Pavan Sai Plastic Traders, A proprietorship concern Represented by its proprietor Sama Prashanthi, Office at H. No. 1-6-4016Bl3, Palsabgutta, Rajendranagar, Mahabubnagar - 509 001.

¶9

Also at

¶10

H.No.civic 81, Sarika Township Rajiv Swagruha, Palkonda, Mahabubnagar - 509 001.

¶11

Smt Sama Prashanthi, Wo^Sama Sridhar, aged major, Occ: business, H.No.civic 81, Sarika Township, Rajiv Swagruha, Palkonda, Mahabubnagar - 509 001.

¶12

e'l'-;'ttN
i.l tb<br>";
i osrrnzm l)
%"#

¶13

(OA.No.115 of 2022)

¶14

Sri Sama Sridhar, Aged major, occ: business, H.No.civic 81, Sarika Township Rajiv Swagruha, Palkonda, Mahabubnagar - 509 001.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant

¶18

Sri P. Balaji

¶19

For the Defendants Exparte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,O5,139.22ps (Rupees Thirty five lakhs Five thousand One hundred thirty nine and paise twenty two only) with future interest @ 18o/op.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.land 2 availed term loan facility of Rs.1,95,000/in 20L7 for working capital requirements with a primary security of -ilyp-ot-hqgatj.gnl^{tf:requipments, tools, machineryand stocks in trade.}

¶23

.: _. '{^':: ....:rr 't'ti:)}.f. _Defendaint^{no.3 dt[Q as guarantor to the loan} availed by defendants l-' "--,' -' t;r. 2 availed housins loan of Rs.16,80,000/- for

¶24

, t 3. f?it?ff6""t-l&

¶25

; ng loan top up of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the

¶26

(OA.No.115 of 2022)

¶27

purpose of house repairs and term loan of Rs.10,01,250/- under SSI Scheme. The defendants executed composite agreement, annexure no.VII, RF 255 dated 19.8.2017, agreement for housing loan and composite agreement deed dated 08.09.2017. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 31.03.2021 and issued demand notice dated 07.04.202L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶28

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 26.10.2022.

¶29

Shri Sanjit Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A,1 to A.21.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

The point that arise fqrc€.nsideration is whether the Applicant Bank is .^{.:.:-.-.-'"'--*} entitted for lti6'da'im:r;ddlitVn" oA asainst the Defendants as /;'oi' '{# "r\ prayed fofl ;Y '.=? ,- \ ii; ii rl't^{o s rEB ?$a} L'^,,i' , 7. The defen nQbif af iJltsl ts Wer were called led uES,aU+itt f ,and set exparte. To substantiate i "\ ."r ' r'" ,^*;6,. b.= r, t - .^{'. '.'} ,,--;,'.--: -.-'.'^{-^} j--i the case "t ttUSIf:rypi'rAw.1, ..' d.. -. "/ officiat of the Appticant Bank

¶32

(oA.No.115 of 2022)

¶33

was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to 4.21. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶34

8' In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under:

¶35

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.35,05,139.22ps (Rupees Thirty five lakhs Five thousand One hundred thirty nine and paise twenty two only) with future interest @ 1go/op.afrom date of filing of OA till realization.

¶36

i) The Applicant Bank is entiiled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entiiled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly. A g *g 7gy3

¶41

¶42

(OA.No.115 of 2022)

¶43

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of Feb., ZO23)

¶45

sdl-

¶46

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

fr$ rr8 ilm

TRU

*fi:iif;sffiilt^E

Union Bank of India v. Pavan Sai Plastic Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Pavan Sai Plastic Traders

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 Mr Kothakapu Manjula

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