Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Madhamchetty Anil Kumar

DRT8 Nov 2023OA/24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I Hyderabad allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding credit card dues. The court held the bank's evidence and documents unchallenged as the defendant failed to substantiate his defense or cross-examine the bank's witness, ordering payment of the claimed amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.23,59,876.78 plus 18% p.a. interest; bank entitled to proceed against properties and costs.

Union Bank of India versus Madhamchetty Anil Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No,24 oJ 2fJ22

¶3

Between :

¶4

Union Bank of India, (Erstwh ile Andhra Bank) Credit card division, 2nd floor, Andhra Bank building, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Madhamchetty Anil Kumar, S/o Sri Srinivas Madhamchetty, Aged about 51 years, occ: business, R/o H.No,7-1-170, Maruthi Veedhi, Secunderabad -500 OO9

¶8

Defenda nt

¶9

Counsel for the Parties:

¶10

For the Applicant

¶11

Sri V. Sethu Madhava Rao

¶12

For the Defendant :....

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum 76.78ps (Rupees Twenty :',:' :-.,-l..1,.\ Three Lakhs Fifty sana' Eiglrt 5undred Seventy Six

¶15

and paise Seventy uent interest @ 1B% fl {^{1.irr; ''';n}

¶16

loA.No.24/2022)

¶17

p,a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed Visa Credit Card No.4373 7B2O 2653 4010 with a limit of Rs.75,000/-. After availing the credit card and receiving credit bills, the limit was enhanced to Rs.5.00 lakhs on submission of IT returns for the assessment year 201,6-1,7 and ZO|T2018.

¶19

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendant has availed the said credit card facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant did not regularize the account. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is Rs.23,59,876.78ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Nine thousand Eight hundred Seventy Six and paise Seventy Eight only) with subsequent interest @ 18o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the OA.

¶20

The Defendant filed written statement. The defendant submitted that

¶21

the Applicant bank never agreed for enhancement of credit card and not allowed to utilize such limit. itted that the applicant bank charged service a mou nts eversince Y,iI r[2ts lr]i nm I lYi^,s:1'. \rj', '_-'i:) .'la

¶22

(OA.No.2412022)

¶23

the.card was hot listed in August 2018 which is against the regulations and guidelines of RBI. Hence^prayed for dismissal^{of OA.}

¶24

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim,^{filed evidenceaffidavit duly} sworn in by Sri Ch. V. Gopal Reddy,^{Manager as AW.1 and through} him marked 4 documents as^{Ex.A.1 to} A.4.^{As againstthis, the} defendant dld not choose to^{adduce any evidenceon his behalf in} support of his contentions^{and also did not choose to crossexaminethe} AW.1 to controvert the Chief^Evidence.

¶25

Heard Applicant side arguments.^{Eventhoughwritten statementfiled} by defendant, thereafter^{the counsel for defendantwithdrawn his} vakalath. No representation^{from defendantside.}

¶26

I have perused the documents^{placed on record'}

¶27

Now, the points that arise^{for considerationare:} i) Whether the Applicant^{Bank has proved its claim as madein OA} against the defendant^?

¶28

ii) To what relief ?

¶29

Point No.i):

¶30

As per the documents filed^{bY t} and also as^per the admissions made bY the^d tement, it is very

¶31

,0 B !i, ,n21 :

¶32

(oA.No.2412022)

¶33

clear that the defendant has avaired credit card rimit from the Appricant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendant are clearry mentioned in the statement of account fired by Applicant Bank. The defendant has not placed any material documents to show his bonafides for establishing the contentions.

¶34

AW.l is not cross examined by the counsel for defendant. The defendant has not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that the liability is less than the amount mentioned in the oA and no supporting documents filed for estabrishing that he has not availed enhanced limit. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A,4 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendant is liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶35

Point No.ii)

¶36

B. In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶37

i) The Defendant is liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.23,59,876.78ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Nine thousand Eight hundred Seventy Six and paise Seventy Eight only) with subsequent interest @ 1Bo/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶38

,
,<br>*
0 B I0l/ ,l.l71 ,r
A
.--t ' ait
W#

¶39

(OA.No.24/2022)

¶40

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the^{parties concerned.}

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by} me^{in the open} court on this the 8th day of Nov, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

'r-RuE C'JPY

^*-lffi$t'

Union Bank of India v. Madhamchetty Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Madhamchetty Anil Kumar

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Dontheboina Nageswara Rao

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vadluri Sambaiah

State Bank of India versus Smt. Shobha Rani

State Bank of India versus Mohd Kamar a Alam

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mr Rambabu Kasaraboina

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Star Industries