Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Venkateshwara Traders

DRT31 Aug 2023OA/133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Open Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs.38.60 lakhs from M/s. Venkateshwara Traders and its proprietor, Allampally Rajesh Rao. The bank succeeded in proving its claim to proceed against mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.38,60,883.84 with future interest @11.05% p.a. and costs of the application.

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Venkateshwara Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.133 of 2022

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India, Kandikal branch, 18-5-922/924, Outside Lal Darwaja roa d, Kandikal, Hyderabad. Telangana State - 500 253. Represented by its Branch Manager Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Venkateshwara Traders, Shop no,B-5-t21/59, Mailardevpally village, Rajendra nagar, RR district Telangana - 500 052. Rep by its Prop: Allampally Rajesh

¶9

Mr. Allampally Rajesh Rao, S/o Sriramulu, aged 37 years, Occ: business, Rlo I-11-78/5, Budwel Rly station, Gagan Pahad, Rajendra naga r mandal,

¶10

Defenda nts Pavan Kumar

¶11

(OA. No.133/2022)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.38r6or883.84ps (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty thousand Eight hundred Eighty three and paise Eighty four only) together with current and future interest @11.05%^p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization and in default for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶14

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor, the 2nd defendant herein availed loan limits of Rs.30.00 lakhs under CC "Union Enterprises". The defendants executed hypothecation agreement, hypothecating all stock stored at defendant no.1 premises. Defendant no.2 executed term loan agreement, interest agreement, letter of continuity, debit balance confirmation on 37.07.2079. The loan facilities availed by the defendants is secured with collateral security as mentioned in the schedule "A,, to OA. Defendant no.2 is the absolute owner of mortgaged application schedule property exe t and declaration to that extent on 19.06.201 After the facility, the defendants ': failed to comply the terrrns Of Tlmqmn"nog e a pplica nt bank was

¶15

(oA.No.133/2022)

¶16

constrained to classify the account as NPA on 31.10.2020 and issued demand notice on 03.12.2020. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶17

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 13.04.2023.

¶18

Shri Amit Kumar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

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?

¶21

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 who is the official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A. 16. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim ma{9*i1-1_,tle OA against the Defendants and hence the Appticantr-Aiiiii$Efu"er the ctaim made in i.. .^{--)- --.. ,.r!} , "^\ .';: ,=.:'t '^Ar {^t. '.. the OA with future intere'st_-and coslsi -' fiF ,?1, ***** i i. 'i , r .r '1 1ilUB2m $llfi 2m - :i i ; .I i "'³ ,r tl,f '1 .r :- .-'/l \ t ii:--^{- t'..-} .-'' - Y -'--' ,,j---i tt '.:iit- 'ri'. .....:-;: .: = 'iLr '..t- "*f,.'r. :;-:-z.2

¶22

(oA.No.133/2022)

¶23

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

¶24

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3g,6o,8g3.g4ps (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty thousand Eight hundred Eighty three and paise Eighty four onry) together with current and Future interest @11.05% p.a from date of application till realizaUon.

¶25

i) The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in the schedure to oA towards rea lization of its dues.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

¶31

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶32

1 1 [uB^2frn sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Venkateshwara Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Venkateshwara Traders

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Kirana and General

Canara Bank versus M S Bismilla Agency

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vishnu Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S .Joyce Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri P. Sachin Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S Wellcare Clinics