Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Gracewell Enterprises

DRT10 Aug 2023OA/188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application by Union Bank of India against a firm and its individual partners. The Bank claimed recovery of a loan default. After auctioning mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act and recovering a sum, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay the balance along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 31,23,810.81 less Rs. 29,05,470 recovered; jointly and severally liable; entitlement to future interest at 12% p.a.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.188 of 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

Union Bank of India, 10-3-60/8lock no.3, GOIE Campus, Entrenchment roa d, East Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026. Represented by its authorised officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Gracewell Enterp rises, Represented by its partners Ms. R. Roopa Reddy &

¶9

Mr. P. David Christopher

¶10

7 / L3-2, 7-t3 /2/ t, 3.d floor, Opp Radison, Above ICICI bank, Gachibowli Kondapur road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032.

¶11

Ms. R, Roopa Reddy, H.No.25lB-10, Laxmi villa, Teachers colony, East Marredpally Hyderabad - 500 026.

¶12

Mr. P. David Christopher, Plot no.55, PMR enclave, Flat no. 101, sneha na Habsiguda, Hydera[ar Defendants 10 AllSm

¶13

(-fu'ryP

¶14

(OA.No,188/2022)

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

For the Defenda nts

¶18

Sri K. Lakshminarayana

¶19

Expa rte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,23,81o.81ps (Rupees Thirty one lakhs twenty three thousand Eight hundred ten and paise eighty one only) with interest @ 12.1Oo/op.a with monthly rests from 01.05.2022 till reallzation and in default for sale of lmmovable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants M/s. Grace Well Enterprises represented by its partners Mrs. R. Roopa Reddy and P.N. David Christopher availed term loan facilities for a sum of Rs,30.00 lakhs vide letter dated 21.10.2016. The defendants executed DPN for Rs.30.00 lakhs, composite agreement and general form of guarantee dated 27.10.2016. The defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage and registered the document as 3093/2016 dated 24.1O.20t6. After avaiting the toan facitity, tne'o"etffi[tt comply the terms of "^{-rt til} sanction, hence the apptiliant Oan$tr rined to classify the

1r0 AU6 2[8

W,-'s-W

(oA.No.188/2022)

account as NPA on 02.04.202I and issued demand notice dated 02.05.2019 and on 08.09.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶27

¶28

Defendants No.1 to 3 were called absent and set exparte on 76.tt.2022.

¶29

Sri M. Anil Kumar, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10. The Applicant bank auctioned the mortgaged property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and recovered a sum of Rs.29,05,470/- on 11.01.2023.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(oA. No.188/2022)

¶34

Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶35

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

¶36

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.31,23,810.81ps (Rupees Thirty one lakhs twenty three thousand Eight hundred ten and paise eighty one only) with interest @ 12,loo/op.a from 01.05.2022 til the date of realization LESS a sum of Rs.29,OS,47Ol- recovered under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.

¶37

i) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no,1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶43

$i
1O AU82W
'b,r,1$

¶44

ru. uor,.roi,oJi
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRI'E COPY
";l:;H":#Y:'l

Union Bank of India v. M/S Gracewell Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Gracewell Enterprises

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Mahateja Industries

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

State Bank of India versus Miss Devunuri Alisha

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

Manne Narsimulu versus Canara Bank

Mr Badavath Namya versus Canara Bank