Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vedanta Cosmecuticals

DRT11 Oct 2023OA/401/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA.No.401 of 2022, the DRT at Hyderabad allowed the Debt Recovery Tribunal application filed by Union Bank of India against the respondents. The court held that the bank established its claim, ordering the recovery of the principal sum, future interest at 10.30% p.a., costs, and permitting proceedings against mortgaged properties and borrower assets.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 56,37,504.99 with future interest @ 10.30% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vedanta Cosmecuticals — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1lTH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.4O1 of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank), Mahabubnagar Main Branch, Opp district Police Headquarters, Kosgi road, Mahabubnagar - 509 001 Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Vedanta Cosmecuticals 5-3-60/1, Plot no.l"3, road no.1B, Gouthaminagar, va nastha lipu ra m, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶9

Mrs. Suryakantha Ratna, w/o B.G. Prasad, female, aged major, 5-3-60/1, Plot no.13, road no.1B, Gouthaminagar, va nastha lipu ram,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 070,

¶11

Mr. Budhiraju Venkata Vijaya Ravi Teja, Male, aged major, 5-3-60/1, Plot no,13, road no.1B, Gouthaminagar, vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500 070.500 070.070.

¶12

Hyderabad - 500 070.500 070.070.
'F,t
1f
4. Mr. Budhiraju Vinookanth,
s/o B.G. Prasad, aged major, male,
j 11 ocT ?on ]
W,*,r'

¶13

(oA.No.401/2022)

¶14

5-3-60/1, Plot no.13, road no.1B, Gouthaminagar, va nastha lipu ra m, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶17

For the Applicant

¶18

For the Defenda nts

¶19

Sri T. Sasi Kumar Exparte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.56,37,5o4.99ps (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Thirty Seven thousand Five hundred four and paise ninety nine only) ( Rs.11,66,666.67ps + Rs.12,65,000/- f Rs.24,05,838,32ps + Rs.8,06,000/- ) with future interest @ 10.30olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants availed credit facilities for a sum of Rs.75.00 lakhs as term loan, Rs.20.00 lakhs as OD facility for the purpose of manufacturing of cosmetic preservatives...,. Defendant No.1 company is a firm representerJ by its pdrtntrs Oefed'aanii-"pp-2. & 3 and defendant

¶23

(oA. No.a01l2022)

¶24

no.4 stood as guarantor who offered the schedule mentioned property as collateral security, To secure the loan limits, the defendants executed composite agreement, sale deed bearing doc. No.3620/2016, Memorandum of deposit of title deeds, demand promissory note dated 05.11 .2016, supplement to composite agreement, consent for disclosure of information to CIBIL, General form of guarantee etc. The defendants submitted form-A under section 59 o Indian Partnership act, 1932 and also submitted partnership deed executed on 07,03.2014. 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 29.05.2022 and issued demand notice dated 06.07,2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding, Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants 1 to 4 called absent and set exparte on 22.05.2023.

¶26

shri Uttam Kumar, chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.L and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.L to A.25.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel

¶28

-!..: i.

¶29

(oA. No.a0112022 )

¶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

Defendants 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 A.25. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.56,37,504.99ps^(Rupees Fifty Six^Lakhs Thirty seven thousand Five hundred four and^paise ninety^nine only) ( Rs.11,66,666.67ps + Rs.12,65,000/- + Rs.24,05,838.32ps⁺ Rs.8,06,000/- ) with future interest @ 10.30o/o^p.a from date^of application till the date of realization ;

¶34

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the mortgaged properties as described

¶35

(oA. No.a01l2022)

¶36

the Applicant Bank is also entitled 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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶40

15, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1lth day of Oct, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE.COPY o""Mr"^ DRT-t, tit DER;IB,qF. /

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vedanta Cosmecuticals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vedanta Cosmecuticals

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 Ms Indira Poultry Farm

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sharadha Binders

Bank of India versus M/S. S. v. Constructions

Ms Sri Radhakrishna Agro Industries versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Flagsquare Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank versus Sri. Mamilla Damodar Yadav