Allowed

Uco Bank v. P T Shekharappa

DRT17 Oct 2023OA/303/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Originating Application under Section 19 of RDDB Act, the Bank sought recovery of approximately Rs. 56 lakhs against a principal debtor and guarantor. Upon the respondents' ex-parte default, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the issue of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Present OA allowed as prayed for with interest and costs; Office directed to issue Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus P T Shekharappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 17th day of October, 2023

¶3

Presentr Sri Imtiaz Ali

Presiding officer

oA No.303/2O22

BETWEEN:

UCO BANK

Davanagere Branch

At: First Floor, NarasarajPet,

H.M. Road, Mandipet

DAVANAGERE

Karnataka - 577 OOL

Represented by its Manager

¶14

Sri Bhakti Bhusan Garanayak

¶15

.. APPLICANT

¶16

AND:

¶17

sri P.T.Shekharappa

¶18

s/o. Sri Poojari Thimmappa

¶19

Aged about 51^years

¶20

Residlng at : Gollarahalli

¶21

Anaii, DAVANAGERE - 577⁵⁷²

¶22

2,M/S CGR COLLATERAL^{MANAGEMENT LTD.,}

¶23

Shop No.151, First Floor,

New Dhan Mandi

Sri Ganganagar

Raiasthan - 335 OOl

Represented by its^Authorized Signatory.^DEFENDANTS

¶28

counsels on record/apoeared for: Applicant : Sri K R. Parashuram Defendants No.1 and 2 ', Ex-Parte

¶29

FINAL ORDER

¶30

The^present OA has been^{filed by the ApplicantBank}

¶31

¶32

OA No.303/2022

¶33

under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of money of Rs.56,88,9g1l(Rupees Fifty Six lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty One only) together with costs, interest, etc.

¶34

The case of the Applicant Bank is that, the Defendant No.1 is a Principal Debtor/ Borrower has approached the Applicant Bank and requested for grant of Demand LoanAgriculture of Rs.46,00,000/- in order to meet agriculture expense requirement by pledging Areca nut in favour of the Applicant Bank on the strength of the^.Ware House Receipt 'issued to Defendant No.1 and 2. Accordingly, the Applicant after processing the aforesaid request of the defendant No.1, sanctioned Demand Loan-Agriculture of Rs.46,00,OOO/_ to defendant No.1 under Loan Account No.10430610021347 vide Sanction Letter Dated 23.O7.2Ot9. The Defendant No.2 stood as the Guarantor for the loan availed by the Defendant No.1. In order to secure the loan, the Defendants have executed documents viz., On Demand promissory Note in Form A-1, Letter of Waiver in Form A-47, Agreement to Pledge of goods to secure a demand cash credit, The Storage Order, Guarantee Letter, Letter by 2nd defendant for

¶35

¶36

OA No.303/2022

¶37

insurance, Warehouse receipt undertaking cum take delivery letter, the Undertaking acknowledgment of sanction of ware house loan and Agreement relating to Term Loan etc.

¶38

The Applicant Bank further submits that, the Credit facility was sanctioned for a^period of 12 months and rate of interest was charged at 8.650lo per annum at half yearly rests at the time of sanction. Thus at the time of sanction the effective rate of interest was 8.65olo per annum but at present effective rate of interest is 7.90o/o p.a.

¶39

Further, the Defendants have agreed to repay the above loan with variable rate of interest, as applicable from time to time as^per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and^penal interest in case of default and keep the accounts regular by^paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

¶40

The Defendants after utilizing the said loan facility granted by the Applicant Bank. Despite of repeated follow up and demands made by the Bank, the Defendant No,1 failed to repay the entire outstanding amount, Thereafter, the

¶41

¶42

OA No.303/2022

¶43

Applicant Bank follows the prudential system of acconting and the said loan account become a non-performing asset(NPA). Hence, un-debited interest from 2a.07.2020 is shown separately. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank has sent Recall Notice to the Defendants on 28.07.2O2O to repay the outstanding loan dues with interest. In spite of receipt of notice, the Defendants have failed to pay the outstanding dues and hence the recovery process is initiated to recover the dues.

¶44

In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that Defendants are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.56,88,981/- (Rupees Fifty Six lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty One only).

¶45

After filing this OA, Summons were sent and served to the Defendants through RPAD. When the Defendants were called out, the Defendants remained absent and placed ex parte.

¶46

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, The Senior Manager- Mr. Kiran Kumar c. has filed his affidavit by way of evidence the same was considered as evidence of AW.1 and marked at Ex.A1 and list of document came to be marked at Ex.A2 and 15 documents came to be marked at Ex.A3 to A17.

¶47

¶48

OA No.303/2022

¶49

No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

¶50

Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/

¶51

Applicant Bank heard and perused the records of the case.

¶52

Following points arise for my consideration:

¶53

1. Whether Plaintiff/Applicant Bank proves its case as contended in the^pla int/a pplication ?

¶54

1. What Order?

¶55

For the following reasons, I answer the abovereferred points in the following manner:

¶56

REASONS

¶57

The Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank came to be examined as AW.1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above-referred Ex.A3 to A17 which clearly establish the case of the Applicant Bank to allow the present OA. Added to this, the Defendants have remained absent and hence they were placed ex parte. Therefore, it is to be construed that Defendants have admitted the entire case pleaded by the Applicant Bank in the present OA.

¶58

¶59

OA No.303/2022

¶60

t4, Therefore, for these reasons,^{present OA is to be} allowed with costs as sought^{by the ApplicantBank.}

¶61

ORDER

¶62

Present OA stands allowed as^prayed for^{with interest} and costs.

¶63

On failure to^pay the above OA amount,^{the Applicant} Bank is at liberty to^{proceedagainst} the^{persons and other} properties of the defendants as required under law.

¶64

Applicant Bank shall file latest Memo of^{Calculation of} OA amount together with interest, costs^etc., to^{be paid by} Defendants duly taking into account the amount/s, if^any, paid by the Defendants and/or amount realised by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening^{period after filing the OA,} to enable the office to^prepare Recovery^{Certificatefor the} amount to be^paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.

¶65

Office is directed to issue Recovery Certificate as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA and do the needful as required under the law forthwith.

¶66

¶67

oA No.303/2022

¶68

The Office is directed to issue, as far as possible, free

¶69

copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶70

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17th day of\October, 2023)

¶71

tL I (Imtlaz Ati) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶72

ANNEXURES

¶73

Witness Examined for the Applicant Bank: AW-1 : Mr.Kiran Kumar G.,

¶74

The Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶75

List of Documents Exhibited for the Aoolicant Bank: Ex.A-l : Affidavit of AW-1 Ex.A-2 : List of Documents

¶76

Ex.A-3 to A-L7 : 15 documents

¶77

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶78

Nit-

¶79

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶80

Nil-

¶81

,,-,Iu'^l,o," Presiding Officer DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶82

Uco Bank v. P T Shekharappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. P T Shekharappa

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

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Messers Smart Point

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Ambico Exports and Imports Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus Shashikanth

Vijay Kumar versus Uco Bank

K Haris versus Idbi Bank

K Haris versus Idbi Bank