Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy

DRT2 Aug 2023OA/235/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Operating Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 30,43,431.11 plus interest against defendants who failed to repay an agricultural loan secured by a mortgage. The Tribunal held the bank established its claim.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 30,43,431.11 with interest at 12.50% per annum; option to proceed against immovable property and other properties; costs of the OA.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.235 OF 2OZ2

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India, (E- Andhra Bank) R.C. Puram branch, Plot no.2 & 23, Jyothi nagar, Ramachandrapuram, Sangareddy district Represented by its authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Pati Satyanarayana Reddy, s/o P. Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, aged about 66 years, occ: business, H.No.3-1 1-65/1, Ramanthapur Colony, Ramanthapur,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 013.

¶11

¶12

c/o M/s. Sridevi G ra n ites, II floor, Kaarvi Arcade, Upstairs HDFC Bank, Opp Bajaj Electron ics, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶13

Mrs. Pati Sridevi, w/o Pati Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 58 years, occ: business, r/o H.No.3-1 1-6511, Ramanthapur colony, Ramanthapur,

¶14

O 2 /lUEtW

¶15

(OA.No.23sl 2022)

¶16

Hyderabad - 500 013.

¶17

¶18

Flat no.109, Vinay City Apartments, Sy.No.39 part, ward no.12, Block no.1, Near Anand nagar, Bandlaguda, Uppal, LB nagar, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶19

Defenda nts

¶20

Counsel for the^parties:

¶21

For the Applicant

¶22

Mrs. V. Dyumani

¶23

For the Defendants Expa rte

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3o,43r431.1lps (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty three thousand Four hundred Thirty one and paise Eleven only) with interest @ 12.50o/op.a with monthly rests from the date of oA til the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of immovable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in states that

¶27

the defendant No.1 is is wife of

¶28

defendant no.1. The o Rs.32.00

¶29

lakhs vide san*ion tetter dated ralro.S?sAffi/Ei..r,uJ of ftar funy

¶30

(OA.No.23sl 2022)

¶31

described in the schedule to OA. The defendants executed composite agreement of Rs.32.00 lakhs promising to repay within 1g0 monthly installments. To secure the repayment to applicant bank, the defendant no.1 deposited registered sare deed no,52B2l2015 dated 19.10.2015. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 30.11.2020 and issued demand notice dated OB.O4.2O2L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶32

? Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 24.03.2023. 4. Smt T. Padmasree, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

The defendants were To su bsta ntiate the case of the Appticanr Bank,finfvq6ud1g is illE official of the

¶38

lOA.No.235/^2022]|

¶39

Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.9. 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.

¶40

B, In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as unden

¶41

The Defendants are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total Rs.3o,43,431.11ps (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty three thousand Four hundred Thirty one and paise Eteven only) with interest @ 12.50o/op.a from the date of OA till the date of realization.

¶42

i) The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the immovable property as described in the schedure to oA towards rearization of its dues.

¶43

ii) the Applicant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

of receipt of order.

¶47

/&- "1
ryl
I', 0 2tl,'UE I t81
is -4
,.1 rt:li
-\ .rr.

¶48

(oA.No.23sl 2022)

¶49

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of Aug, 2023)

sd/_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TITUE EC-,FY
,qs$r, Re_€!-! s l.ror
DPT-1, H:t:*,ivt^5.

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy

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

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Shashi Pet Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri Nallathigala Surender

Union Bank of India versus Rajabhadraiah

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Amani

State Bank of India versus Miss Devunuri Alisha

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