Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Mahateja Industries

DRT9 Aug 2023OA/135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India against a proprietorship firm and its guarantor for recovery of dues Rs.61.82 lakhs with interest. The defendant was absent, and the court accepted the bank's evidence establishing the loan debt.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 61,82,652.95 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Mahateja Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^gTH DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.135 ol 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Kandikal branch, tB-5-922/924, Outside Lal Darwaja road, Kandikal, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 253. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Mahateja Industries, Sy.No.247lAA & 249, Muppireddypally, Near TSIIC Auto park, Toopran Mandal, Medak district, Telangana - 502 336 Represented by its proprietor Mrs. Keerthi Priya Darshini,

¶10

Mrs. Vemula Rama, w/o Mr. Vemula Suresh, aged 48, occ: business, R/o 2-22-2l$1303, flat no.303, Sai Koteshwara Residency, Jayanagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 5OO O72. Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶12

For the Applicant Pavan Kumar
,.,'6-
For the Defenda nts
rh"
t
0s ilf m

¶13

(oA.No.13s/2022)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.61,82,652,95ps (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Eighty two thousand Six hundred fifty two and paise Ninety five only) i.e., a sum of Rs.58,71,359.95ps in respect of loan account no.327605110000120 with current and future interest @ 11.85o/o p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs. 3,11,293/_ in respect of loan account no.327606350000005 with current and future interest @ 11.85o/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of OA till realization and in default for sale of mortgaged immovable property and movable property as described in the schedules "A &B,, to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is the proprietor and defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the loan facilities availed by defendant no.1 firm and offered the collateral security more fully described in schedule A to oA' The defendants availed Rs.48.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 26.O6.20t9. The defendant no.2 executed letter of guarantee agreeing to the terms and conditions of loan facilities availed by defendants. Defendant no.1 represented by its proprietor executed hypothecation all types of pickles, roll forms, pouches, items more fu lly described in the the loan facilities, r I iltJB 2m3

¶17

(OA. No.13s/2022)

¶18

the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 01.03.2021 and issued demand notice dated lg.O4.2O2l. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on L4.02.2023.

¶20

Shri Amit kumar, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.18.

¶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 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 exhlbited relevant documents as Ex,A1 to A.18. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established thei OA against the Defendants and hence the recover the claim made in

¶24

the OA with nterest and costs. * ,^o$tlJB?f,B s

¶25

(OA.No.13s/2022)

¶26

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

¶27

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.61,82,652.95ps (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Eighty two thousand Six hundred fifty two and paise Ninety five only) i.e., a sum of Rs.58,71,359.95ps in respect of loan account no.327605110000120 with current and future interest @ 11.85o/o p.a and a sum of Rs. 3,71,293/- in respect of loan account no.327606350000005 with current and future interest @ 11.850/o p.a from the date of OA till the date of realization.

¶28

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable and movable properties as described in the schedules "A & B" to OA towards realization of its dues.

¶29

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

fl I AIJB 2m

¶33

(oA.No.13sl2022)

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶36

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by court on this the^gth day of Aug, 2023)

me in the open

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

/"-'3L1fu<br>lP +t ";
; rs AtlBlm
ffi-ry

¶42

":,.=,,'mJ),

Union Bank of India v. M/S Mahateja Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Mahateja Industries

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

State Bank of India versus Miss Devunuri Alisha

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Amani

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Monagari Laxmi Narayana (Died)

Union Bank of India versus M/S Gracewell Enterprises

Manne Narsimulu versus Canara Bank