Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. M. Kalpana

DRT15 Nov 2023OA/161/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT-I Hyderabad allowed an order for recovery (OA.No.161 of 2023) in favor of Union Bank of India against three respondents. The bank sought realization of a term loan of Rs. 22.80 lakhs and a differential balance of Rs. 25.42 lakhs along with interest,Upon application.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,42,244.40 plus interest at 11.65% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged schedule property.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. M. Kalpana — Writ and Judicial Review | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.161 of 2023

¶4

Between :

¶5

Union Bank of India, Branch office at H.No.B-2-162 /L62/t, Beside Old LIC Building, Wyra Road, Khammam branch, Khammam. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mrs. M. Kalpana, W/o M. Pullaiah, aged about Major, female, prop rietrix of M/s. Kalpana Feed Mixing, Khammam District - 500 039,

¶9

M/s. Kalpana Feed Mixing, Pkroprietor Mrs. M. Kalpana R/o H.No.3-48, Kodumuru Village, Khammam dist-500 039.

¶10

Mrs. Gosu Bhavani alias^puchakayala Bhavani, W/o P. Srinivasa Rao, Aged a bout major, female, R/o 6-2-97/7, Sri Krishna Nagar, Khammam (Urban), Khana pu ra m Haweli, Khammam dist - 507 002. Defenda nts

¶11

Counsel for the Parties: *t.fit\n.r,,urnu

¶12

For the Applicant For the Defendants Expa rte

1 5 tnv^,I21

(OA. No.161/2023)

ORDER

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs2S/2J44.40ps (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty two thousand Seven hundred Forty four and paise forty only ) with interest @ 11.650/0 p.a from OI.O4.2O2| till the date of realization and in default for sale oF mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.1 herein the sore proprietrix of M/s. Karpana Feed Mixing availed term loan of Rs.22,80,000/_ for purchase of machinery and also for working capital requirements. Defendant no.1 representing defendant no.2 executed demand promissory note dated lI.O4.2Ol7 and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor who executed guarantee agreement dated 11.04.2017. Defendant no.3 as a guarantor deposited the memorandum of deposit of tifle deeds dated 28.03.2017. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and notices. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶18

Defendants 1 to 3 e on 14.08.2023.

¶19

(OA. No.161/2023)

¶20

Sri D. Naveen Nayak, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW' 1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A,1 to A.13.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank,

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.13. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶25

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

¶26

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.25,42,244.4Ops (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty two thousand Seven Forty four and paise

¶27

(OA. No.161/2023)

¶28

forty only ) with interest @ 11.650lo p.a from Ol.O4.2O2t till the date of rea lization ;

¶29

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the schedule mentioned property as described in the OA.

¶30

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

¶31

L2, The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of Nov, 2023)

¶36

sd/-
(c. GoPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRUE COPY
$P",
o,.,1.','r;, t9{:1'l', ul, lfld

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. M. Kalpana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. M. Kalpana

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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Shesharao Rathod

Bank of India versus M/S. Almalik Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Smt Sai Krupa Thummala

K N Bhasker Ji versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstructions

Nacharam Ramesh versus Union Bank of India

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