Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S the Brew Cafe

DRT18 Aug 2023OA/181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan along with interest. The court held that the bank established its claim and the defendants are liable to pay the balance amount after deducting remitted sums.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 27,23,916/- with 14.10% p.a. interest from 25.04.2023, along with costs and recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S the Brew Cafe — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.181 of 2OZ2

¶4

Between :

¶5

Union Bank of India, Masab Tank branch, 10-3-376/ 2, Masab tank, Hyderabad - 28. Represented by its Chief Manager Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. The Brew Caf6, Partnership firm, D. No.B-2-229 / 82/ A/ 47 3, Nakshatra, ploy no.473, Road no.36, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad - 500 033. 2. Mr. Sundeep Bollinenil, S/o Mr. B. Narasimha Rao, f.OeO^{aO_out 33 years, occ: business,} Flat no.503, Mantri Celestia, A block, Gachibowli, Opp ICICI towers, Hyderabad. 3. Mr. Raj Kumar Medhi, S/o Pradip Medhi, aged major, Occ: business, H.No.8-2-6d3/ /30/B/A, Road no.10, Banjara h ills, Hyderabad - 5OO 034.

¶8

(o A.787/2022)

¶9

Mrs Padmini Bollineni, w/o B. Narasimha Rao, aged about 53 years, flat no.503, mantra celestia, A block, Gachibowli, Opp ICICI towers, Hyderabad. Defenda nts

¶10

Counsel for the^parties:

¶11

For the Applicant Sri N.V. Subba Raju For the Defendants Expa rte

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.77,7g,gLG/_ (Rupees Seventy seven lakhs Seventy Three thousand Nine hundred and Sixteen only) with further interest @ 14.10o/o p.a with monthly rests from 04.06.2O22 til realization and in default for sale of mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to oA.

¶14

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 being partnership firm represented by its partners defendants no.2 & 3 availed SOD limit of Rs.60.00 lakhs under Abhivruddhi scheme to property. The defendants executed r"."r.. ^-ri$;;Tj''d 4.. .ll.2OL7 in favour of the Applicant bank. #runaun&iruo.z,Z?, 4 stood as guarantors and ; ,* 18AllE2r08 ;# % a ,s-s,y'

¶15

(o A.787/2022)

¶16

gave personar guarantee in consideration of credit facirity availed by defendant no.1 and executed general form of guarantee. As a security for due repayment of said credit facirities avaired by defendants, the defendant no.2 deposited originar titre deeds i.e., original gift deed bearing no.7662/20l7 dated 30.08.2017 registered in the office of SRo, Shivaji nagar, Bangarore with an intention to create mortgage over schedule A property. 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 31.03.2021 and issued demand notice on O}.O4,2O2L. 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 11.01.2023.

¶18

Shri Abhimanyu Mudavath, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9. During the pendency of the OA, the defendants remitted a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs on 28.03.2023, a sum of Rs,9.00 lakhs on 24.04.2023 and a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs on 25.04.2023 total of Rs.25.00 takhs.

¶19

Hea rd the Ld.

¶20

loA.781/20221

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

The defendants were cailed 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 A.9. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim 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.

¶24

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

¶25

The Defendants are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.27,23,916/_ (Rupees Seventy Seven lakhs Seventy Three thousand Nine hundred and Sixteen only) with further interest @ 14.10olo p.a from 25.04.2023 till the date of realization LESS a sum of Rs.25.oo lakhs remitted by defendants.

¶26

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged to OA towards realization of

¶27

;^{1E rlulzw j;,} 'W

¶28

lo^A.78t/20221

¶29

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of Aug, 2023)

¶35

sd/-

¶36

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

,a,6r',,i',,.Sqi
1i rv ,i'l '9 \f
.i; 1 I ArrE,*
.. i;J
*t''i,.-
r,:t.i:ii;}
''J#+W'r

¶38

TIIUE COPY
l;rffi,""moil;,,,

Union Bank of India v. M/S the Brew Cafe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S the Brew Cafe

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Potta Bhikshapathi

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Abi Industry

Union Bank of India versus Rohit Kumar

Indian Bank versus M/S. Yamjala Vimala

Ms Aarush Polymers Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Manikanta Mineral Water Plant