Allowed

Uco Bank v. Mr. Yalavula Ramu

DRT5 Oct 2023OA/219/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a loan of approximately Rs. 20.00 lakhs. The court held the bank established its claim and directed joint and several liability of the defendants to pay the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,00,952.93 with interest at 7.9% p.a. from 21.06.2022 till realization plus costs.

Uco Bank versus Mr. Yalavula Ramu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2c.23

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

OA.No.219 of 2022

Between:

UCO Bank,

Khammam branch, D.No.2-3-245, Sundar Talkies road, Gandhi chowk, Khammam- 507 OO3. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Yalavula Ramu, s/o Yallavula Brahmam,

¶10

occ: agriculturist, aged 51 years,

¶11

H.No. 16-26/5, Godam Bazar, Huzu r naga r,

¶12

Telangana - 508 204.

¶13

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 - t22 OIB.

¶14

Also at

¶15

26/40, fhird block, New Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan - 335 001.

¶16

407-402, fourth floor, K.l. City Tower, Ashok Marg,

¶17

.:
it 5 0tT
' , :.,

¶18

lO^A.No.21,9 /2022]|

¶19

C-scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302 001.

¶20

And also at

¶21

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

¶22

Defend a nts

¶23

Counsel for the^parties:

¶24

For the Applicant For the Defendant No.1 Defendant no.2

Smt P.S. Sujatha

Sri G. Bhanu Murthy

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2O,OO,952.g3ps (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Nine hundred fifty two and paase Eighty three only) with

¶30

further interest @ 7.9o/o p.a with monthly rests from 21.06.2022 till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶31

As states

that provisions

of co llatera I

loA.No.z19/2022)

management services with the Appricant bank. Defendant no,1 avaired loan of Rs.19,50,000/- against the pledge of agricultural produce vide warehouse receipt dated 26.03.2019. Defendant no.1 entered into an agreement to pledge of goods to secure a demand cash credit loan dated 29.03.2019 with the Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 01.06.2O2O,20.07.2021, L6,04.2021 and 30'06'2021' Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶36

shri G. Bhanumurthy filed vakalath for defendant no.1 but not filed written statement. Hence the right of firing of ws was forfeited on 2t.O6.2023. Defendant no.2 was called absent and set exparte on 06.03.2023.

¶37

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.21.

¶38

q Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶39

(OA.No.2L9/2o22J

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

prayed for?

¶43

7' counser for defendant no.1 fired vakarath but not fired 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 rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.21. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is enti'ed to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶44

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

¶45

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2O,OO,9S2.g3ps (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Nine hundred fifty two and paise Eighty three only) with further interest @ 7 .9o/o p.a from 21.06.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶46

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶47

movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶48

_!l
:
.r :';, ij ll h i:'
'r\f.r "1; ..
.
'ii'i,
\; \: . j
.s

¶49

(oA. No.21912022)

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Issue Recovery certificate accord ingly.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶55

(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)

¶56

sd/_

¶57

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

¶59

rRuF coPY ,-.",M1,,a

Uco Bank v. Mr. Yalavula Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Mr. Yalavula Ramu

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

All orders in this case

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

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Vasantham Swapna

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gouri Narasimha Reddy

Uco Bank versus Mr. Kancharla Aravind Reddy