Allowed

City Union Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Laxmi Venkateswara Cotton Industries

DRT14 Dec 2023OA/26/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by City Union Bank Ltd. against several cotton industry proprietors and partners. The court entered a default judgment holding that the bank was entitled to recover the entire loan amount along with interest, overriding the partial payment made.

What did the court decide?

Association of Respondents to pay Rs.9,91,63,039.99 with subsequent interest @ 15.5% p.a. less paid amount and realized properties.

City Union Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Laxmi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

PRESENTI SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.26 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

City Union Bank Ltd., Warangal Branch, Warangal district

¶7

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Laxmiven kateswara Cotton Industries, Rep by proprietor Mr. Pathri Kishore Kumar, Gorreku nta village, Geessuga nda manda l, Warangal, Warangal district.j

¶11

Mr. Pathri Kishore Kumar, Major, H.No.3-15/2, Balajinagar, Enumamula Road, Warangal- 506 002, Warangal district.

¶12

M/s. S.S. Cotton Industries, Rep by its Proprietor Sri pathri Kishore Kumar, H. No.46-03-15/2, Balajinagar, Enumamula, Warangal, Warangal district.

¶13

4.
Mrs. PathriRamadevi, .1 ;'i ,,li<br>w/o Pathri Kishore Kumar, maior, . ..,., .r'"qr.,iiN
'l,l:.
H.No.46-3-4, batajinagar, 3
t' :
Enumamula, New grain market ,,,-
Road, warangul, viu.ung;iffi ,.' , ; nrt 1ffi :
lquEb(

¶14

Mr. P. China Kommulu, s/o Narasaiah, major,

¶15

(oA.No.26 of 2022)

¶16

H. No.46-03- 1 5/ 2, Batajinagar, Warangal, Warangal diitrict.

¶17

Mrs. P. Laxmi, w/o P. ChinnaKommulu, major, H. No.46-03- 1 5 / 2, Batajinagir, Warangal, Warangal diitrict.

¶18

M/s. Shiva Shakthi Cotton Ginning Industries, Rep by its partners Mrs. P. Laxmi and Mr. p. Chinna Kommalu, H. No.46-03-15/2, Balajinagar, Warangal, Warangal district.

¶19

Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants 1 to 3 Defendants No.5 & 6 Defendants No.4 and 7

¶21

Srl Ambadipudisatyanarayana Sri T. Vijay Kumar Sri A. Vijay Kumar Ex pa rte

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.9,91,63,O3g.99ps (Rupees Eight Crores Ninety One lakhs Sixty three thousand thirty Eight and paise Ninety nine only) with subsequent interest @ 15.5% p'awith monthry rests from date of oA ti, the date of rearization and in default for sale of properties as

described in the

B(Ato

140[[ Qarrr;

(OA.No.26 of 2022)

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietor concern and 2nd defendant is its sore Proprietor. Defendant no.3 is a partnership firm and defendants 5 & 6 are the partners of said firm. The defendants 2 and 5 stood as guarantors to the oLCC rimit of Rs.75.00 rakhs avaired by defendant no.3. Defendants 2, 5 to 7 stood as guarantors to OLCC limit of Rs.300 lakhs availed by defendant no,1 ; defendants 2,5 and 7 stood as guarantors to the oSL speciar roan of Rs.40.00 rakhs avaired by defendant no.3 ; defendants 2,5 & 7 stood as guarantors to OSL special loan of Rs.90.00 lakhs availed by defendant no.3. The defendants 1 and 3 created hypothecation charge on movabre stocks more fu'y described in schedure as primary security to the roan. The said roan facirities are coraterary secured by way of equitabre mortgages on the properties more fully described in schedules to oA. The defendants deposited their respective titre deeds rerating to the respective properties with the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facirities, 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 06.05.2021& possession notice dated 07.10.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the o Hence this OA.

¶29

? Defendants 4 & Tcattod dbsent t | dnd set --.i,1 "i;?';" ^ ii on 18.01.2023.1d counsel Sri T. Vijay Kumar fiiedl vakalatii for?#endants 1 to 3 and rra' ,.' ,-' .: 3 '.' .:/-; ,,: ,-, '\ -. ,.,. ,. ,J ':^{: '-''."'} _ _ ,_.-^{. .:-:i '-}

¶30

(oA.No.2O of 2022)

¶31

sri A. Vijay Kumar fired vakarath for defendants 5 & 6 but not fired Written statement.

¶32

Shri I. Krishna Kishore, BranchManager of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.76.The defendants paid part payment of Rs,1,16,5O,OOO/- and the Applicant Bank released the properties of schedule c, schedure E, Schedure F, schedure H as mentioned in the Application B Schedule.

¶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

¶36

prayed for?

¶37

Defendants 4 & 7 called absent and set exparte. Counsels for defendants 1 to 3 and 5 & 6 fired vakaraths but faired to fire written statements. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.76. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has establis claim made in the OA against is entitled to recover costs.

¶38

S;;*li:g,.'

¶39

(oA.No.26 of 2022)

¶40

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

¶41

The Defendants are jointry and severary riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.9,91,63,03g.99ps (Rupees Eight Crores Ninety One lakhs Sixty three thousand thirty Eight and paise Ninety nine only) with subsequent interest @ 15.5olo p.a from date of OA till realizationLESS a sum of Rs.1,16,5O,OOO/_ paid by defendants.

¶42

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedules A and B (A,B,D,G,I,J,K) to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2,4 to 6 and properties of Defendants no.1,3 and 7 towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Dec., 2023)

¶49

sdlTRI,JE GOPY (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER ,*rr'W5

City Union Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Laxmi Venkateswara Cotton Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Laxmi Venkateswara Cotton 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 Sri.Jangili Srinivasa Rao

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Bricks

J R Traders versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vaddi Sidhardha Reddy

Indian Bank versus M/S Narahari Teja Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/S. Varsha Logistics