Allowed

M/S. Uco Bank, v. M/S. Bhagya Laxmi Enterprises

DRT1 Aug 2023OA/20/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by UCO Bank against two respondents for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 58,39,976.23 along with interest. The Court rejected the defense regarding blank signatures and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued directing joint and several liability of respondents to pay Rs. 58,39,976.23 with interest, and entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property.

M/S. Uco Bank, versus M/S. Bhagya Laxmi Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2O of 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

M/s UCO Bank, Koti branch, at rear block of Pushpanjali complex, H.No.5-1-908, Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Senior Manager

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Bhagya Laxmi Enterprises, Carrying on business at H.No.4-4-441, Giriraj lane, sultan Bazar, Hyderabad-95 Represented by its proprietrix Smt Sunita Gupta, w/o Shiv Kumar Gupta, aged about 53 years, occ: housewife, R/o H.No.14-1-400, New Aghapura, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶9

2, Sree Bhavesh Kumar Gupta, s/o Shiv Kumar gupta, aged 29^years, occ: business, R/o H.No,14-L-40O, New Aghapura, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad -500 001. Defenda nts

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

For the Applicant Sri M. Keshava rao
For the Defendants s Sreedhar
+
0 1 AU6 20n

¶12

(OA.No.2012022)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.58,39,976.23ps (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Thirty nine thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six and paise Twenty three only) with further interest @ 10.95olo p.a with monthly rests from 01.02.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶15

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants availed cash credit loan of Rs.35.00 lakhs on 05.11.2014. The defendants executed necessary loan documents including promissory note, deed of hypothecation of goods, letter of guarantee on 11.05.2017. The defendant no.2 created mortgage over the schedule property in favour of Applicant Bank towards security for repayment of the facility availed by depositing original title deeds on 10.11.2014 in respect of schedule property more fully described in the schedule to OA. Thereafter the cash credit facility was enhanced from Rs.35.00 lakhs to Rs.42.00 lakhs. The defendant no.2 executed MOTD for enhanced limit on 09.05.2017.

¶16

It is submitted bV]ffi that the Defendants have ava iled up the repayment * u^01Atlg28g l9.o 2 sslT, -..,,9/ vh.,n. '-:// rc:

¶17

(oA.No.20l2022)

¶18

schedule, as such the account was classiFied as NPA. Inspite^of demands made by Applicant the defendants^have not^{regularized the} account, and the applicant bank issued demand^{notice dated} 26.O4.2O2L but the defendants did not^{come forwardto repay the} same. The total claim of Applicant against^{defendants is} Rs.58,39,976.23ps (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Thirty^nine thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six and^{paise Twenty three} only) with further interest @ 10.95%^{p.a with monthly restsfrom} O1.02.2022 till realization. Hence^{the OA'}

¶19

The Defendants have filed common^{written statement admittingthe} availment of loan from the Applicant^{bank but they averred that at the} time of availing of loan, the Applicant^{Bankhas obtainedtheir} signatures on several blank^{forms and due to Covid-19couldnot repay} the some of the installments.

¶20

The Applicant Bank in^{support of its} filed evidence affidavit dulY sworn in by Sri MurthY Naik^Badawa ior Manager as AW.1 and to A.40. Defendant no.2.

¶21

through him marked 40 documents^a examined herself as DW.1^{and exhibi}

¶22

¶23

(oA.No.2012022)

¶24

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶27

ii) To what relief ?

¶28

Point No.i):

¶29

The Applicant Bank in order to establish its claim has examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited documents which are marked as Ex.A.l to A.40. AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not disputed the claim made in the OA but their contention is that the Applicant bank obtained their signatures on blank documents but no material is placed by them to substantiate the said contention. Moreover a perusal of the document clearly indicates that they are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transactions. Even though the defendant no.1 examined herself as DW.1, her evidence is no way helpful to her. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken ,./7_u by._lhe^defendants fr- -i.{)-.:: is^- not^-' tenable. Hence the applicant bank is ""y{{i6-clu* tnA$\mounr from defendants. lP i-: o 1IUf,^1il8 W,r'

¶30

(OA.No.20/2022)

¶31

Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶32

Point No,ii)

¶33

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶34

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.58,39,975.23ps (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Thirty nine thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six and paise Twenty three only) with further interest @ 10.95olo p.a from 0L.02.2022 till realization.

¶35

ii) The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

v) The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two.weeks from the date

¶39

,,i^# i*

¶40

(oA.No,20l2022)

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1't day of Aug, 2023)

sdl -

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ob*
/#
\i
-ilt ll
' il
a .v'!
;"-;i,r

¶48

tou=ffiLu

¶49

Dd+:,:iffi",il{3'^b'

M/S. Uco Bank, v. M/S. Bhagya Laxmi Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Uco Bank, v. M/S. Bhagya Laxmi Enterprises

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Krishna Extrusion Technics

Union Bank of India versus Shri Vadla Jaya Prakash

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Multi Level Rehab Co.

Bank of India versus Shashi Pet Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri Nallathigala Surender

Union Bank of India versus Rajabhadraiah