Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Core Fuel Enterprises

DRT14 Dec 2023OA/523/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presiding Officer allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues from M/s. Core Fuels Enterprises and associated individuals on an ex-parte basis, adjudging them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

The defendants directed to pay Rs. 2,40,02,149.72 with future interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against assets and properties; Issue of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Core Fuel Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEI4BER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAN1ESHWAR KOTHE, B.com., L.LB. (Hons,), M.A. PRESIDING OFFlCER

¶3

Original Application No: 523 OF 2022

¶4

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) SME Nacharam Branch, H. No. 9-24, Plot No, 63, Street No.1, HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-500076. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lY/s. Core Fuels Enterprises. Rep. by its Partners Mr. Florusupalli Raghavendra Rao & Mrs. Morusupalli Padmaja, Majors, Plot No. 154, # 8-6-124, FCI Cotony, Phase-II, Va nastha lipu ra m, Hyderabad-500070.

¶8

Also at:

¶9

M/s. Core Fuels Enterprises, Rep. by its Partners Mr. Morusupalli Raghavendra Rao & Mrs. Morusupalli^padmaja, Majors. Sy No. 41161/Am Ramdaspa[i Viltage. Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶10

Also at:

¶11

M/s. Core FUels Enterprises, Rep. by its Partners Mr. Morusupalli Raghavendra Rao & Mrs. Morusupalli^padmaja, Majors, #3-5-824/ 1, 1st Floor, padmavathi plaza.

¶12

OY"o

¶13

oa.No.523l2O22

¶14

Hyderguda, H ydera bad - 5 O OO2 9. 2. Mrs. Morusupalli^padmaja, W/o. Raghavendra Rao, Age: I4ajor, Occ: Business, Plot No. 154, #8-6-t24, FcI cotony, Phase-II, Va nastha lip u ra m, Hyderabad-500070.

¶15

Mr. Morusupalli Vamsee Krishna, S/o. Raghavendra Rao, Age: Major, Occ: Business, Plot No. 154, #B-6-t24, FCI Cotony, Phase-II, Vanasthalipuram, Hydera bad- 5 0 0 0 70.

¶16

Morusupalli Raghavendra Rao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Age: tvlajor, Plot No. 154, #B-6-f24, FCI Cotony, Phase-II, Vanasthalipuram, H^yd era bad- 5 0 0 0 70. ...Defendants

¶17

Counsel For the Applicant :lvlr. Srinivasa Rao Cha krala Defendants : Exparte

¶18

:: ORDER::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.2,40,02,!49.7 Zps i.e. Rs.1,91,85,919/-, Rs.36,42,603.79ps and Rs,11,73,626.93ps under CCIOD, TL UGELC and TL CELC respectively from the defendants with interest @ 10.550/o, @ 8.00% and @ 7.500/o p.a. respectively frcm 17.07.2022 till the date of realization along with costs and in default sale of OA schedule assets. anfr6,, ^

/--/./rngL>

oA,NO.5Z3lZO22

Summons served on D1, whereas summons of D2 to D4 served through paper publication. They were set exparte on 2A-02.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined Lavudya Jogi Singh, Senior Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 48 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.48.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the written arguments and the material placed on record.

¶26

5, The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶27

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

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.48 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.523/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally lia ble to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,40,02,149.72ps i.e. Rs.1,91,85,919/-, Rs.36,42,603.79ps and N"o

¶31

oA.NO.s23l2022

¶32

¶33

Rs.1l,73,626.93ps under CCIOD, TL UGELC and TL CELC with future interest @ 7.50% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage/hypothecation of assets described in the schedules annexed to OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against} the same to realise its debt;

¶35

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^{properties of} defendants for realization of its dues and;

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶37

B. The Applicant Bank ls directed to file Cost Memo^{within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly,

¶39

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 14th Day of December, 2023).

¶40

fi'w*

¶41

1nj(uesHwnn^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Core Fuel Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Core Fuel Enterprises

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

Rajesh Venugopal versus South Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Mamun Hussain Chowdhury

Sri Bikram Yadav versus Nedfi

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Nitesh @ Nitesh Krishan Nand

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Karanam Ajay Kumar

V P Rasheed versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited