Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Heramba Enterprises Private Limited

DRT18 Apr 2023OA/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery of dues arising from a secured loan facility and working capital advance, the Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's claim for the outstanding principal, interest, and costs against the defaulting company and its guarantors after examining official documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 1,06,35,264/- with future interest at 10% p.a. plus costs; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Heramba Enterprises Private Limited — Corruption | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE lgrH DAy OF ApRrL,2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.28 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Chikkadpally branch, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Heramba Enterprises Private Limited, represented by its directors Defendants no.2 & 3 herein

¶10

3-9-18,3 -9-L9, S.V. chambers, Beside police station, West Marredpally,

¶11

Secunderabad - 500 026.

¶12

Sri SriramShravan Kumar, s/o Sri Sriramvenkateswarlu, aged about 33^years, occ: business & director of 1't defendant company 3-9-18,3-9-19, S.V. chambers, Beside police station, West Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026.

¶13

¶14

H. No. t6-4-448, shivanagar, Warangal town and district - 506 002.

¶15

(oA.No.28l2022)

¶16

Sri S rira mVen kateswa rlu, s/o Sri SriramAgaiah, aged about 60 years, occ: business & director of 1st defendant company 3-9-18,3-9-19, S.V. chambers, Beside police station, West Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026.

¶17

¶18

H. No. 16-4-448, shivanagar, Warangal town and district - 506 002. Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Parties:

¶20

For the Applicant Sri N, Jagannadham

¶21

For the Defendants Exparte

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,06,35,264l- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty Five thousand Two Hundred and Sixty four only) with future interest @10olo^p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for^{sale of} 'i,. mortgaged' propertie$ and fiyj movables as described in ' I ri the scheduld "A to C"'to OA. * 1B APR 2M r..r I ^-tf 2. As P e r t t on, the Applicant Bank states \Q$"q:-1til,'&-$ that defend pany, represented by its directors

¶24

(OA.No.28/2022)

¶25

defendants no.2 & 3 availed working capital loan of Rs.100.00 lakhs on 12.09.2016. To secure due repayment of secured overdraft loan facility of Rs.10O lakhs, 1st defendant company represented by defendants 2 & 3 executed demand promissory note, composite agreement and undertaking in favour of Applicant bank. Defendants 2 & 3 executed general form of guarantee dated 12.09.2016. On L4.09.2016 defendant no.3 deposited original regd sale deed document no.6057l2ol5 dated 15.06.2015 and sale deed document no.1005/2002 dated 22.02.2022 creating equitable mortgage over his immovable property more fully described in schedule Property "A & B" to OA. Defendant no.1 company hypothecated all stocks, machinery, equipment, raw materials more fully described in Schedule property "C" to OA. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 3t.05.202t and issued notices dated 07.7.2021 and 19.08.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 28.10.2022.

¶27

SmtManisha Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 --9nd tgri$tegmelevdn documents, which are marked as

¶28

(OA.No.28l2022)

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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?

¶31

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to 4.2t. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶32

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

¶33

The Defendants are jointly a nd s reverally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs .1,O6,35,.l 2641(Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty Fivee th rousand Two Hundred and Sixty four only) with future inte rtrest @10 o/o P.d from date of

¶34

application till reptization.''' .-. . .'.,
;,;' .t; fi<br>F: \1
;1,:: 1IAPRion 'ii1
,.r,..i ,"!:
ii-.'1,'
.,J:r'h,t
Qxff,,

¶35

(oA.No.28l2022)

¶36

i) The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the pafties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of April., 2023)

¶43

sd/(c. GoPTcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

TRUE COPY
b$h1,r
,*ffiffigpty

Union Bank of India v. Ms Heramba Enterprises Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Heramba Enterprises Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sujit Dattatray Yande Anr. versus Asrec (India) Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Rtam Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Om Sai Mini Rice Mill and Others

Canara Bank versus Saroj Kumar Thakur and others

Idbi Bank versus Sri Laxmi Kant Ojha and Ohters

Ms Kishan Agro Enterprises and Others versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)