Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S .Joyce Industries

DRT31 Aug 2023OA/240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application against two defendants for recovery of outstanding loans. The bank proved its claim through documentary evidence, and the Tribunal ordered the defendants to pay the decretal sum with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 64,49,457.33 with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties of Defendants for realization.

Union Bank of India versus M/S .Joyce Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.240 oi 2OZ2

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Kandikal branch, tB-5-922/924, Outside Lal Darwaja road, Kandikal, Hyderabad. Telangana State - 500 253.

¶6

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Joyce Industries, D. No.7 -24/7/8, Venkateswara colony, Sultanpur village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy district, Telangana - 502 110. Represented by its proprietor G, Praveen Kumar,

¶10

Mr. G. Praveen Kumar, s/o Sri Yesepu, aged major,

¶11

occ: Prop of M/s. Joyce Industries, H . N: . 9 - 3;l e t / t 47-/ t L f t,. . _1:,:::j:.,:: :: l/g Plot no.B-7, 5th Malla Re Mad h u ra na ga r, Hydera b'j"iiif'llTelangana - 502 110.^,",llj- Defendants 1 1 frU$m ? Aj s# "'i..bo,.-t't$#

¶12

(oA.No.24012022)

¶13

Counsel for the Pa rties:

For the Applicant

Sri D.S. Pavan Kumar

For the Defendants

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.64,49,457.33ps (Rupees Sixty Four lakhs Forty nine thousand Four hundred fifty seven and paise thirty three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.48,49,910.49ps in respect of loan account no.327605080000102 together with current and future interest @13.90olo p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.15,99,546.84ps in respect of loan account no.327606L70000037 together with current and future interest @ 14.40olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor, the 2nd defendant herein availed. term loan limits of Rs,50.00 lakhs under The defendants executed hypothecation all stock stored at It defendant no.1 prer,qises. executed term loan .\

¶21

loA.No.24o/2022)

¶22

agreement on 14.03.2019. Defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 executed hypothecation agreement hypothecating a[ tangibre movables, plant and machinery, raw material, semi finished and finished goods, more fully mentioned the schedule to oA. Defendant no.2 executed interest agreement, letter of continuity, letter of confirmation, demand promissory note and retter of undertaking on 14.03.2019. 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 and issued regar notice on 29.70.2020. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 03.02.2023.

¶24

4' Shri Amit Kumar, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

lOA.No.24O/2022)

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 who is the official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhiblted relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. 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.

¶30

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

¶31

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.64,49,457.33ps (Rupees Sixty Four lakhs Forty nine thousand Four hundred fifty seven and paise thirty three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.48,49,910.49ps in respect of loan account no.327605080000102 together with current and future interest @13.900/o p.a and a sum of Rs.15,99,546.84ps in respect of loan account no.3276O6t70000037 together with current and future interest @ 14.40olo p.a from date of application till realization.

¶32

i) The Applicant bank against the hypothecated assets as described towards rea lization of its

¶33

dues.

¶34

(oA.No.2a012022)

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by meⁱⁿ the^open court on this the 31't day of Aug, 2023)

¶41

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

ffi,\t#-:lr:-h
I1 rtlBzm 5ll
'':i'*,,n
'' ^+..::::.--l-.

¶43

Union Bank of India v. M/S .Joyce Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S .Joyce Industries

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 M/S. Sri Laxmi Kirana and General

Canara Bank versus M S Bismilla Agency

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vishnu Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Venkateshwara Traders

State Bank of India versus Sri P. Sachin Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S Wellcare Clinics