Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Gml Aerospace

DRT29 Dec 2023OA/181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT-II at Hyderabad disposed of Original Application no.181/2023 filed by Union Bank of India against M/s. GML Aerospace for recovery of Rs.92,71,259.34. Held defendant liable, allowed claim with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent to pay Rs.92,71,259.34 with future interest @ 11.10% p.a., proceed against secured assets and properties, and bearing costs.

Union Bank of India versus Gml Aerospace — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER,2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 181 OF 2023

¶4

Union Bank of India, (erstwhile Andhra Bank) SME Nacharam Branch, H.No.9-24, Plot No.63, Street No.1, HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-500076. Rep. by its Chief lvlanager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s.GML Aerospace, Proprietrix: Mrs. Guijunuri Saritha, w/o. Jampaiah, Age: 36^years, Plot No. 7/4, Sy No.519, Lp.Nadergul, Balapur, Ranga Reddy-501510.

¶8

Also at: l'lls. GML Aerospace, Proprietrix: Mrs. Guijunuri Saritha, # 2- 150-6/ 2, Adarshnagar Cotony, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Ivledchal-Malakajgiri District-500039.

¶9

Also at: M/s. GML Aerospace, Proprietrix: Mrs. Gujjunuri Saritha, # 3- LOs/ 47, Adarshnagar Colony, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Medchal-Malakajgiri District-500039.

¶10

...Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Srinivasa Rao Chakrala Defendants : Exparte OW**

oA.NO.1812023

:: 9-LLq8 :;

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA for the recoverya sum} of Rs.92,71,259.34ps with future^interest @^{12.05olo p.a. till} the date of realization along with costs and in default^{for sale of} oA schedule assets.

¶16

Summons served on sole defendant,^{she was set exparte on} O2,O8.2O23 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Rohit Pandey,^{Branch Manager,} as Aw-1 and marked 31 documents through^{himas Ex. A.1 to} Ex. A.31.

¶18

Heard the Ld. counsel for the Applicant Bank and^{perused the} written arguments and the material^placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule assets?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant^remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.31 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to^pay the oA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

X-'..!n')

oA.NO.181/2023

In the result, the present Original Application No.181/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.92,71,259.34ps with future interest @ 11.10o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage/hypothecation of assets described in the schedules annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendant for realization of its dues; and

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶30

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated tothe st€no, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29d Day of December, 2023) .

¶33

Ktg ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Gml Aerospace

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Gml Aerospace

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S. Gokul Cement Agencies

Canara Bank versus Sri. Pattada Kambanna

Joyti Pradeep Somaiya versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S S K Decor

Mr Ashok Rao versus Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.

Mr Ashok Rao versus Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.