Allowed

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) v. Mrs. Vedavarapu Anila

DRT16 Nov 2023OA/14/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT allowed the bank's originating application against the borrower and guarantor. The court held the claim proved and directed the defendants to pay the outstanding principal with interest. The bank was also granted permission to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties for realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay total Rs. 29,27,870/- with interest; bank permitted to enforce mortgage and proceed against personal properties.

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Mrs. Vedavarapu Anila — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 16rH DAy oF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER OA.No.14 ot 2(J22

¶3

Between :

¶4

Union Bank of India, ( Earlier Andhra Bank) Sanga Reddy branch, Sanga Reddy district, TS. Represented by its Senior Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Mrs. Vedavarapu Anila, w/o Y. Peter Suneel Babu, aged about 46 years, occ: business, H.No.B-11, Kalabgoor village & pO, Sanga Reddy Mandal, Sanga Reddy district - 502 294.

¶8

Sri P. Manjula, W/o G. Karunakar, Aged about 39 years, occ: doctor, H.No.4-B-9015/3, Trinity hospital, N4anjeera nagar, Sanga Reddy- 502 001.

¶9

Defenda nts

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

For the Applicant Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao For defendant No.1 C. S reed ha r Defenda nt No.2 J 1{W .1

¶12

(oA.No.14l2022)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2g,2Z,gZOl_ (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven thousand Eight hundred and Seventy only) ie.,

¶15

a) a sum of Rs.24,42,048/- for loan account no.102930100053744 with interest @ 10.55% p.a from 21.0L.2022 till realization;

¶16

b) a sum of Rs.4,85,822/- for loan account no.102930100O71324 with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a from 21,.01 .2022 till realization;

¶17

and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.1 avaired term roan of Rs.25.00 rakhs for establishing dairy farm and for purchase of buffaloes on 01.09.2018. Defendant no.1 executed demand promissory note and composite agreement for Rs.25.00 lakhs. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and gave personal surety to the loan availed by defendant no.L and executed guarantee agreement on 01.09.2018, Defendant no.1 mortgaged A Schedule property to OA as a security to the above loan

¶19

and deposited originat Slgftf-.fuA ent no.22924/2018 dated 5."q;l-q ,:'f^{{i 1N} lio^{1 E y1y} ntt^* g- ? fu',t#

¶20

loA.No.1-a12022)

¶21

16.04.2018. Defendant no.1 executed memorandum of deposit of title deed no.34074/2018 dated 01.09.2018.

¶22

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants having availed the said loan facilities failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on O2.O4.2OZ| and issued demand noUce dated 21Og.2OZl. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.29,27,87Ol- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven thousand Eight hundred and Seventy only) with interest @ 10.55o/o and 7.5o/o p.a with monthly rests from 2L.04.2022 till realization. Hence the OA.

¶23

The Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that he availed term loan (dairy loan under DEDS scheme) for a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs. It is contended that the Applicant Bank took signatures on blank printed formats. It is submitted that the defendant suffered huge loss of Rs'15.00 lakhs during covid -19 pandemic as the buffaroes died. It is further contended that Applicant bank classified the account as NpA without following the guidelines of RBI.

¶24

(oA.No.14l2022)

¶25

The Applicant Bank in support oF its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Sandeep Kumar Roy, Branch Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 10 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.10. Defendant no.1 Smt Vedavarapu Anila examined herself as DW.1 and filed Ex.B.1 to Ex. B.3.

¶26

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

Heard the Applicant side arguments Defendant counsel filed written arguments.

¶28

6, Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶29

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶30

il) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.i):

¶32

There is no dispute about the fact that the defendants have availed loan from the applicant bank and executed necessary documents in

¶33

favour of the Applicant bq
fq,<br>I 1 E l,rBU ,rm *
4tr
r-i

¶34

(oA.No.t4l2022)

¶35

¶36

AW.1 who is the Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank, in his evidence clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants No'1and 2 to pay the loan amount and he exhibited Ex.A.1to A.10. AW.1 is not cross examined by the contesting defendant No.1. The defendants have not disputed the claim made in the OA but their contention is that the Applicant bank obtained signatures on blank documents but no material document is placed by them to substantiate the said contention. Moreover a perusal of the documents filed by the Applicant Bank clearly indicates that they are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transactions. Even though the defendant no.1 examined herself as DW.1, her evidence is no way helpful to her. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant No.1 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the oA amount from defendants land 2, Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 and 2.

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

In the result, the presen ,,"'i under: i'

¶39

loA.No,74/2022)

¶40

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are joinily and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.29,27,870/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven thousand Eight hundred and Seventy only) ie.,

¶41

a) a sum of Rs.24,42,048/- for loan account no.10293010OO53744 with interest @ 10.550/o p.a from 2t.Ot.2022 till realization;

¶42

b) a sum of Rs.4,85,822/- for loan account no.102930100O7t324 with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a from 21,.O7.2022 till realization;

¶43

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

1,4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶49

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of Nov'2023)

¶50

sd/-

¶51

t': 1 6 Nil, ,rn *...
i-'q:. ffi

¶52

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

-;-rr{UE COPY ,""rMlr,, C,rilr",r, li.i;FsA^gA D,

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) v. Mrs. Vedavarapu Anila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) v. Mrs. Vedavarapu Anila

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

K N Bhasker Ji versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstructions

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. M. Kalpana

Nacharam Ramesh versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri. Syed Hajee Hussain

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vansan Hospitality Services

State Bank of India versus Ms Aishwarya Impex