Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Dream House Cine Techniq

DRT29 Aug 2023OA/276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank to recover a term loan of approximately Rs. 25 lakhs. The court held that the defendants failed to comply with loan terms, leading to account classification as NPA, and granted the bank's claim for principal, interest, costs, and sale of hypothecated goods.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 25,14,943.87 with interest; bank entitled to sell hypothecated goods and proceed against defendants' properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Dream House Cine… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.276 oJ 2022

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India, Branch office at Saifabad-2, BSNL Bhavan, ground floor, Adarsh nagar, Hyderabad Represented by its authorised offlcer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Dream House Cine Techniq, Represented by its Managing partner, Mr. K. Satyanarayana Raju,

¶10

S/o K. Rama Raju, flat no.l02,

¶11

Plot no.266, road no.6,

¶12

Avalon apartments, Ravindra co-operative Society, Madhapur,

¶13

Hyderabad - 500 081. TS.

¶14

(Amended as per orders dated 08.02.2023 in IA.No.191 of ZO23)

¶15

Mr. K. Satyanarayana Raju, s/o K. Rama Raju, aged 41 years, occ: business, flat no.102, plot no.266, road no.6, Avalon Apartments, Ravindra Co-operative Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081. Telangana State.

¶16

Also at

¶17

(OA.No.276/2022)

¶18

Plot no.513, flat no.201, Srinivasa Nilayam, Gokol flats, Venkatramana colony, KpHB, Hyderabad - 5OO 072.

¶19

(Amended as per orders dated 08.02.2023 in IA.No.191 of 2023)

¶20

Mr. P. Bala Rosaiah, s/o P. Venkatarathnam, aged 35 years, occ: business, H.No.17-7, 1't street, Indira nagar, Alwarthiru nagar, Chennai - 600 087. Tamil Nadu.

¶21

Sri C. Phani Kumar Varma, s/o Ch. Rambadra, aged 38 years, Occ: business, H.No.3-3-7, flat no.401, Rambadri Apartment, Satyama Heights, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Bachupally - 500 090. TS.

¶22

Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the Parties:

¶24

For the Applicant Smt Tarangini Pisipati

¶25

For the Defendants Expa rte

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The the present OA against Defendants for .25,L4,943.87ps (Rupees Twenty nd Nine hundred forty three and 1"-Tf'4il['ifif 'n* 'a :r W--.-ery

¶28

{OA.No.276/2022)

¶29

paise Eighty seven only) with interest @ 13.70olo p.a with monthly rests from oL.oB.2oz2 till realization and in default for sale of hypothecated goods as described in the schedule to OA.

¶30

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm formed under partnership deed dated 03.04.2015 and reconstituted on t4.O2.2017 and defendants 2,3 and 4 are partners of the same, The defendant no.1 represented by defendants No.2 to 4 availed term loan of Rs.59 lakhs for purchase of camera of make "Alexa SXT Camera,, vide sanction letter dated 04.O5.20L7. The defendants executed composite agreement dated 08.05.2017. The defendant no.1 represented by defendant no,2 executed consent for disclosure of information to CIBIL, consent letter, term loan disbursements etc. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NPA on 11.05.2021 and issued demand notice on 20.10.2019, Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶31

Defendants were rte on 05.07.2023.
=<br>Pr
AUE zON :,

¶32

lOA.No.276/20221

¶33

Shri M.R.K. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.18.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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?

¶36

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 exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to A.18. 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.

¶37

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

¶38

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.25,14,943.87ps (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fourteen th @#ri,B5d^{rorty three and paise} Eighty seven on till realization.

¶39

i,;^{2s Autzun}

¶40

lOA.No.276/20221

¶41

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

¶42

ii) the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of Aug, 2023)

¶48

sd/-
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFF]CER

¶49

ifi,u
,.,"., f"r,rrrrflI
n.:;'.;, ,r: i ER,4i?i'0'

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Dream House Cine Techniq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Dream House Cine Techniq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vinayaka Polymers

Madhucon Infra Ltd. versus Ifci Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Raksha Ginning and Pressing Factory

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kamalla Stalin

Indian Bank versus Sri Sandrapalli Venkata Bipin Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Kirana and General