Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Sri Mekala Satyanarayana

DRT6 Jun 2023OA/197/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA no.197 of 2022, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad examined a plea for recovery of loans. Finding the bank established its claim through evidence, the court allowed the application, declared respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount with interest, granted permission to realize dues through sale of mortgaged property or against the respondents' person and pr

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay total Rs.91,42,727/- with interest; bank allowed to proceed against mortgaged property and other assets; recovery certificate issued.

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Mekala Satyanarayana — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.197 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

City Union Bank Ltd., Adilabad branch, Adilabad District, Telangana State

¶7

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Sri Mekala Satyanarayana, S/o Mekala Mallesh,

¶11

Proprietor of M/s. Lakshminarayana Cotton Traders, major, 4-2-288, Old bustand,

¶12

Adilabad, Adilabad district.

¶13

Also at

¶14

1-11, Tantoli village - S04 OO1. Adilabad district.

¶15

Smt Mekala Krishnaveni,
w/o Mekala Satyanarayana,
Major, 4-2-288, Old bustand,
Adilabad, Adilabad district.
Defendants
Counsel for the parties: .!!. : .
.'h' tLi'
For the Applicant
.:. --_Smt) Laxmi Chaya
For the Defendants a 0 E 'lUN '=nru
(';6*
^rr.*
'Y&;rgW

¶16

(OA. No.19712022 )

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery oF a total sum of Rs.9L,42,727l- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs forty two thousand Seven hundred and twenty seven only) i.e., a sum of Rs.80,91,551/- under SOD limit with interest @ 14.50o/o^p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.10,51,176l_ under FITL loan facility with interest @ 12.50% p.a with monthly rests from the date of application till realization and in default for sale oF mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietor of proprletory concern viz. M/s. Lakshmi Narayana Cotton Traders. Defendant no.2 is co borrower and wife of defendant no.1. The defendants availed SOD limit of Rs.60 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 09.03.201g and Swayam Griha loan of Rs.9 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 28.05.2018 respectively. The defendants executed demand promissory note for defendants 1 & 2, letter of continuity, letter accepting OD rules, revival letter cum acknowledgement, sanction letter and consent letter dated 29.05.2018. Defendant no.1 deposited title deeds relating to schedule property as described in the schedule to OA and created an equitable mortgage of said property as security to loan facilities. After availing the loan faqility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, -^{.--"{:ii,-,.'-hqSitheapplicantbank was constrained to classifythe accountas} ,., l.i rupn frO.issueO demand notice dated 20.05.202t & possession i, -i .....^{noticedat+d24.OB.2O2L.Inspite of several requests and demands,} i , 0 6^JUN ?9ru defendants ^*,;_ did not ctear the outstanding. Hence this oA. ' ''x 4l x!..Y,' -D'."-i)^-. ':tojg. .; i1r":DiSpF4hts were set expa rte o n 09, 0 2. 2 023. ,!.JuEi:-l r;i' - " i:-:--'.::.:--_ -

¶20

(OA. No.19712022)

¶21

Shri P. Sai Kumar, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.24.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶24

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.24. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim 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.

¶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 Rs.91,42J27/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs forty two thousand Seven hundred and twenty seven only) i.e., a sum of Rs.80,91,551/- under SOD limit with interest @ 14.50o/o^p.a and a sum of Rs.10,51,1761- under FITL loan with interest @ 12.50o/o p.a from the date of application till realization.

¶27

fr /k i) 'The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged in Schedule to the OA towards realization

¶28

k,I due.

¶29

(oA. No.197l2022)

¶30

ii) the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed agarnst the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

iv) The Appricant shail fire 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 ln the open court on this the 6th day of June, 2023)

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

TtsiJEGOPY
/J U-, -: +u/u,
/ issr. Rrstsrar-$l t ) o (/o [ / u >S
Fii'-|. lrYDEllABaD' t

City Union Bank Limited v. Sri Mekala Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Sri Mekala Satyanarayana

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Fraternity Interactive Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Srinivas Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Krishnadhi Raghu