Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M S Sd Cnc Technologies

DRT10 Jul 2023OA/246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India against M/s. SD CNC Technologies for recovery of an outstanding term loan of Rs. 39.46 lakhs along with interest. The court held the defendant liable and directed the bank to proceed against hypothecated assets and the defendant's properties. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 39,46,308/- with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets, person and properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M S Sd Cnc Technologies — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF JULY' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA,No.246 of 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

Union Bank of India Karwan branch, Hydera bad. Represented by its Senior Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. SD CNC Technologies, Represented by its prop: Mr. Dudala Satish, S/o Annavaram, aged 39 yrs, Occ: business, R/o H.No.8-32711, New Vivekananda nagar, Quthbullapur, Medchal dist - 500 037.

¶9

Defenda nt

¶10

Counsel for the Parti

¶11

For the Applicant 1 0 JUt 2623smt^K pally Jhansi Rani For the Defendant

¶12

l The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,46,3Og/_ (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Six thousand Three hundred and Eight only) with current and future interest @ 14.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from

¶13

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶14

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF JULY' 2023

¶15

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶16

OA.No.246 of 2022

¶17

Between :

¶18

Union Bank of India Karwan branch, Hyderabad. Represented by its Senior Branch Manager

¶19

Applicant

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

M/s. SD CNC Technologies, Represented by its Prop: Mr. Dudala Satish, S/o Annavaram, aged 39 yrs, Occ: business, R/o H.No.B-327l1, New Vivekananda naga r, Quthbullapur,^Medchal dist - 500 037. Defenda nt

¶22

Counsel for the Pa rti For the Applicant hpally Jhansi Rani j 10 J11iTp3smtt For the Defe nda nt t5"d. i# 1. The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,46,308/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Six thousand Three hundred and Eight only) with current and future interest @ 14.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from

¶23

(OA.No.246/20221

¶24

28.05.2022 till realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed term loan of Rs.45.00 lakhs for purchase of CNC ZIG Boring Machine on 06.11.2020. The defendant executed letter of sanction, general term loan agreement dated 07.11.2020, demand promissory note, letter of continuity and letter of undertaking etc. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 09.05.2022 and issued legal notice dated 01.08.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA,

¶26

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on 26.O4.2023.

¶27

Shri Girish Kumar Jha, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A. 11.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel

¶29

:r
.k
, ?n ,tljt ?tfll _
'k;:.tttpii1

¶30

loA.No.za;l2o22l

¶31

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?

¶32

The defendant was called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.AL to A.11. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶33

¶34

in the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶35

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.39,46,3O8/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Six thousand Three hundred and Eight only) with current and Future interest @ 14.50o/o p.a from 28.05.2022 till the date of realization,

¶36

i) The Applicant Bank
is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated
assets as described tn OA towards rea lization of
the debt due. fS.r. ut
*
10 JUt 2m
)(l ,-J

¶37

loA.No.246l2ozz)

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

iv) The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the loth day ", ,r,r,b]o!!i,

¶44

sd/-

¶45

(G. GOptcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

,.,4$we6
..+6'S
.a; 10 JUr TRUE. COPY
1.,.
y
irp.'"h,'$dv''+:1Pt
:iii7;.:S"i
";+:;ffi'

Union Bank of India v. M S Sd Cnc Technologies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M S Sd Cnc Technologies

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

State Bank of India versus M/S . Aaradhya Hospitality Services

State Bank of India versus M/S. Radha Sree Motors

Canara Bank versus M/S. Psb Solutions

Union Bank of India versus M S Sowmya Plastics

Bank of India versus M /S .S.S. Motors

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Rajeev Saini