Allowed

Uco Bank v. Mr. Kancharla Aravind Reddy

DRT5 Oct 2023OA/218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by UCO Bank to recover a demand loan of Rs.24.56 lakhs in default with interest. The Bank established its claim through evidence of a warehouse receipt and loan agreement, holding the defendants jointly liable for payment and realization of pledged/mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.24,56,126.35 plus interest at 7.9% p.a. and costs; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged property.

Uco Bank versus Mr. Kancharla Aravind Reddy — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE sTH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.218 of 2022

Between:

UCO Bank,

Khammam branch, D.No. 2-3-245, Sundar Talkies road, Gandhi chowk, Khammam- 507 003. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Mr. Kancharla Aravind Reddy, s/o Mr. Ram Reddy,

¶11

occ: farmer, aged 44 years,

¶12

H.No.4-25, Reddy Bazar, Huzur nagar, Huzur nagar mandal, Nalgonda district,

¶13

Telangana - 508 204.

¶14

M/s. CGR Collateral Management Pvt Ltd, (CGRCML), represented by its Directors, office no.335, third floor, JMD Megapolis Sector 48, Sohna road, Gurugram, Haryana - 122 018.

¶15

Also at

¶16

26/40, Third block, New
Mandi, Sri Ganganagar, ' -i-: '' -
I ri 9,.^=a
Rajasthan - 335 001. 'v,{ .
- lS. ','t
,gi
407-402, fourth floor,

¶17

(OA.No.278/20221

¶18

K.J. City Tower, Ashok Marg, C-scheme, Jaipu r, Rajasthan - 302 001.

¶19

And also at

¶20

First floor, plot no.2, Sawroop Colony, DCM, Ajmer road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302 019.

¶21

Defenda nts

¶22

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶23

For the Applicant

¶24

For the Defendant No.1

¶25

Defendant no.2

¶26

Smt P,S. Sujatha Sri G. Bhanu Murthy Exparte

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,24,S6,LZ6.35ps (Rupees Twenty Four lakhs Fifty six thousand One hundred twenty six and paise thirty five only) with further interest @ 7.9o/o p.a with monthly rests from 2r.06.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale oF hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶29

As per the averments in the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No,2 is a rated u nder the provisions * 2 'i ,, L -

¶30

lo^{A.No.278/2022)}

¶31

of Companies Act, 2Ot3 executed an agreement or collateral management services with the Applicant bank. Defendant no.1 availed loan of Rs,20,25,000/- against the pledge of agricultural produce vide warehouse receipt dated 22.04.2019. Defendant no.1 entered into an agreement to pledge of goods to secure a demand cash credit loan dated 21.01.2019 with the Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 01.06.2020,20.O1.202I, L6.04.2021 and 30.06.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶32

Shri G. Bhanumurthy filed vakalath for defendant no.1 but not filed written statement. Hence the right of filing of wS was forfeited on 21.06.2023, Defendant no.2 was called absent and set exparte on 06.03,2023,

¶33

Shri V. Nagaraju, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A.20.

¶34

Heard the Ld.

¶35

(oA. No.218/2022)

¶36

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?

¶37

counsel for defendant no.1 filed vakalath but not filed ws. Defendant no.2 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.20. In 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.

¶38

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

¶39

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.24,56,126.35ps (Rupees Twenty Four Iakhs Fifty six thousand One hundred twenty six and paise thirty five only) with further interest @ 7.9o/o p.a from 21.06.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶40

0i ii i,T
4

¶41

(oA.No.218/2022)

¶42

The Applicant Bank is entiued to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA.

¶43

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.1 and properties of defendant no.2 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate a cco rd in g ly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of Oct, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRi.!EpoPY
"*r'ffiu

Uco Bank v. Mr. Kancharla Aravind Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Mr. Kancharla Aravind Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Rai Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rav Smittens ( Opc) Private Ltd.

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Krishna Metal Works

Uco Bank versus Mr. Yalavula Ramu

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Vasantham Swapna

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gouri Narasimha Reddy