Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Amani

DRT2 Aug 2023OA/119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Debt Recovery Tribunal application, the Tribunal allowed the Bank's recovery claim against absent Defendants for a loan default. The Court established the claim via witness examination and ordered payment of principal, interest, and costs, granting the Bank locus to attach property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 24,18,226 with interest at 10% p.a. from 04.03.2023 till realization. Applicant Bank granted locus on immovable property.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Amani — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.119 ol 2023

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India, (E- Andhra Bank) R.C. Puram, Sangareddy district Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mrs. Amani,

¶10

Female, major,

¶11

Legal heir of late Mrs. Nandanavanam Srikala, H.No. 16-1-30/A/1, Lokayuktha colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 5OO 059.

¶12

And also at

¶13

H.No. 16-1-24 /2, flat no,504, Lahari Chandra Apartments, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 5OO 059.

¶14

And also at

¶15

Flat no.507, Vinay City Apartments, Sy,No.39 part, ward no.12, block no.1, Near Anand nagar, Bandlaguda,

¶16

Uppal, LB nagar, Hyderabad - 68.

¶17

Smt Pati Sridevi, Female, major,

¶18

W/o Pati Satyanarayana Reddy,

¶19

a2Au81tr3 :;
=
.kuo-ry'

¶20

(OA. No.119/2023)

¶21

H.No.3-1 1-65l1, Ramanthapur Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 500 013.

¶22

Also at

¶23

M/s. Sridevi Granites, II floor, Kaarvi Arcade, Upstairs HDFC Bank, Opp Bajaj Electronics, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶24

Also at

¶25

H.No. 13-155, Narayanapur village & Panchayat, Nalgonda - 5OB 253.

¶26

Also at

¶27

Flat no.109, Vinay City Apartments, Sy.No.39 part, ward no.12, Block no.1, Near Anand nagar, Bandlaguda, Uppal, LB nagar, Hyderabad - 5OO 068.

¶28

Defendants

¶29

Counsel for the parties:

¶30

For the Applicant

¶31

For the Defendants

¶32

Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrala

¶33

Exparte

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The Applicant Bank fiI against Defendants for recovery of a total sum pees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighteen thousahd two

¶36

; [2tmm d Twenty six only)

¶37

(OA.No.119/2023)

¶38

with interest @ 10olop.a with monthly rests from 04.03.2023 tilt realization and in default for sale of immovable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶39

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendants initia[y avaired housing roan for a sum of Rs.22.00 lakhs on 14.09.2015 for purchase of schedule mentioned property. The defendants executed composite agreement, affidavlt by defendants, deposit of title deeds, undertaking by defendants etc. Defendant no.1 executed memorandum of deposit of tiUe deeds registered as EMG/MOD No.478Bl2015 and deposited original document dated 16.09.2015. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 30.11.2020 and issued demand notice dated Og.O4.2O2L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶40

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 18.07.2023.

¶41

Smt T.^padmasree, tor Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and nt ts, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.26. * ilIffi TE ,*l ;'S

¶42

(OA.No.119/2023)

¶43

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

7 ' The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1 who is the officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to 4.26. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant 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.

¶47

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

¶48

The Defendants are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total Rs.24,L8.,226/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighteen thousand two hundred and Twenty six only) with interest @ 10olop,a from 04.03.2023 till the date of realization.

¶49

i) The Applicant bank is ent aga inst the immovable

¶50

property as described ,, i6-ffi owards rea lization of i5,

¶51

its dues. 0 7 AUg ?tr13

¶52

¶53

(OA.No.119/2023)

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

Issue Recovery certificate a cco rd in g ly.

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶59

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2"d day of Aug, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

1-qei
66.
{/'.$
f,F!
..9 ..T.b
0 2 AUf, 2023
&*,#

¶64

,,1?:i';?i?,iffiH'

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Amani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Amani

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

Bank of India versus Shashi Pet Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri Nallathigala Surender

Union Bank of India versus Rajabhadraiah

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy

State Bank of India versus Miss Devunuri Alisha

Union Bank of India versus M/S Sree Rama Cement Bricks