Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Lakshmi Transcon Pvt. Ltd.

DRT4 Sept 2023OA/366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex-parte hearing of an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for debt recovery, the Tribunal accepted the application documents as sufficient evidence, held defendants jointly liable, and granted the bank's claim for recovery with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,73,16,502.20 with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgage; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Lakshmi Transcon Pvt. Ltd. — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF SEPTEIV]BER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 366 OF 2022

¶4

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Srinagar Colony Branch, Hyderabad, Tela nga na-500073. Rep by its Chief lvlanager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Lakshmi Transcan (P) Ltd., C/o: 2no Floor, Meenakshi House, Road No. 7, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500034.

¶8

O. Madhu Manohara Rao S/o. O. Madduleti, Aged: 53 Years, Occ: Business, Plot No. 574, Flat No. 401 & 402, Siri View Towe6, D.No. 14- 1-90/574/4Ol & 4O2, Jagapathi Coop Housing Society Ltd., Gayatrinagar, Allpur Village, Kukatpally, l4edchal-Malkajgiri Dist, Telangana-500018.

¶9

M Bharathi ryo. O. Madhu l4anohara Rao Aged: 47 Years. Occ: Business, Plot No. 574, Flat No. 401 & 402, 3'o Floor, Siri View Towers, D.No. 14- 1-90/574/4Ol & 4O2, Jagapathi Coop Housing Society Ltd., Gayatrinagar, Allpur Village, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist, Telangana-5OOO1B.

¶10

.lflrr^ ,, / /' --n /-,/

¶11

oA,NO.366/2022

¶12

A Goverdhana Rao S/o. Vishnuvardhan^Rao Aged: 58 Years, Occ: Business, Plot No. 7, S. No. 122lP, 123lP^& !241P, Mourya's Ranga Prasad^Avenue, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally^Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist-500032.

¶13

...Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. M. Kanaka Durga Defendants : Exparte

¶15

::^qLLEB::

¶16

The Applicant Bank flled the^{present OA for the recovery from} the defendants^jointly and severally a^sumof Rs.1,73,16,502.20ps as on 31.12.2021^{with futureinterest the} date along with costs.

¶17

The Summons served on^{D1 to 3, whereas summonsof D4} served through^{paper publication.They were set exparte on} OA.O2,2O23 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined^{Harinath Motthala,Chief} Manager, as AW-1 and marked^{21 documents through him as} Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.21.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for^{the Applicant Bankand perused the} materiat^ptaced on record.

¶20

dY"o

¶21

oa.No,366/2022

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants?

¶24

6, As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte, The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.21 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No. 366/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.1,73,16,502.20ps with future interest @ 12olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt; ,4W. .-,/ ?-*^L)

¶28

oA.NO.366/2022 .

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶31

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date oF receipt of this Ord€r.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated.to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4"'day of September, ZO23).

¶34

/DY'* ( A-rqesnwan xorne) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Ms Lakshmi Transcon Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Lakshmi Transcon Pvt. Ltd.

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Jai Bhagwan

Vikash Kumar versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sri Ganpati Food Industries and Others

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Shish Pal

Markandey Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Dirisala Pushpa Sowjanya