Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S Shwetha Rubber Products

DRT21 Dec 2023OA/658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 73,29,202.99 from multiple defendants who default on sanctioned loans. The court accepted the bank's evidence ex parte as no defendants appeared.

What did the court decide?

Order for recovery of Rs. 73,29,202.99 with interest/costs; liberty to sell schedule property; directive to issue recovery certificate.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Shwetha Rubber Products — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023

¶3

Present: Sri IMTIAZ ALI

presiding Officer

OA No,658 /2022

BETWEEN:

City Union Bank LTD Registered Office at 149

¶8

T.S.R (Big Street, Kumbakonam

¶9

Its Branch Office at

¶10

Hubli, CTS No. 4620, J.C Nagar

¶11

3'd Cross, Near Ananth Residency Hubli- 580020

¶12

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶13

And Constituted Attorney

Sri Manikandan,

S/o Sri Natrajan

Age about 38 years

..APPLICANT

AND:

M/s Shwetha Rubber products

¶20

Panjarpol Compound Karwar Road

¶21

OId Hubli

¶22

Hubli - 580024

¶23

2, Sri Ishwarappa S Sajjanar

¶24

S/o Sri Shivabasappa

¶25

Shri Shiva Basav Nilay

Chawan Plot

Sajjan Colony

Gokul Road Hubti - 580030

¶30

OA No.558 /2022

¶31

3. Smt Suvarna Sajjanar

¶32

W/o Sri Shivabasappa Shri Shiva Basav Nilay Chawan Plot Sajjan Colony

¶33

Gokul Road Hubli - 580030

4.Ms Shuti Sajjanar

D/o Sri Shivabasappa

Chawan Plot

Sajjan Colony

Gokul Road Hubli - 580030

¶39

5. Sri Ragunath P Chillai

¶40

S/o Pitambarappa

¶41

No. 44, Vithal Peth ChannaPeth Old Hubli

¶42

Hubli - 580024

¶43

6. Smt Vijaylaxmi^R Chillai

¶44

W/o Sri Ragunath P Chillai

¶45

No. 44, Vithal Peth ChannaPeth

Old Hubli

Hubli - 580024

7. Ms. Pooia Chillai

D/o Sri Ragunath^P Chillai

¶50

No. 44, Vithal Peth ChannaPeth Old Hubli Hubli - 580024

¶51

..DEFENDANTS

¶52

Counsels on record^{/aoPearedfor:}

¶53

Applicant : Sri K. Raveedran Defendants : Ex-Parte

OA No.658 /2022

FINAL ORDER

The present OA has been filed by the Applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of money ot Rs.73,2g,2c.2,gg /-^(Rupees Seventy Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand

¶59

Two Hundred Two and Ninety Three paise only) together with costs, interest, etc.

¶60

The case of the Applicant Bank is that the Defendant side approached the Applicant Bank for sanction of credit facilities for their business and accordingly. the Applicant Bank after considering the request of defendants had sanctioned an OLCC loan of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs and further enhanced to Rs.28.00 lakhs on certain terms and conditions with interest at the rate ot l4o/o per annum compounded monthly in favour of Applicant Bank.

¶61

Moreover, the defendant No.4 availed a personal loan of Rs 29 lacs from the Applicant Bank.

¶62

¶63

Further, the Defendants No. 5 to 7 approached the Applicant Bank for sanction of Vidyavani Management loan for perusing education of Defendant No, 7 and accordingly

¶64

OA No-658 /2022

¶65

the Applicant Bank has sanctioned a Vidyavani Management Loan to the extent of Rs,4.oo Lakhs dated 26.11.2012 with interest at the rate ot L4,75 o/o per annum compounded monthly in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶66

Necessary documents were executed by the defendant side while availing the aforesaid loans.

¶67

The Defendants after utilising the said loans have failed and neglected to make the repayment of the loans due as agreed and Defendants have not serviced the interest thereon as per the terms and condition agreed by the Defendants.

¶68

In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that Defendants are liable to pay a total sum R,s,73,29,2O2,99 /- (Rupees Seventy Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Two and Ninety Three paise only).

¶69

After filing this OA, Summons were sent and served to the Defendants No. 1to 7 through RPAD. When Defendants were called out, Defendants remained absent and

OA No.658 /2022

placed ex parte.

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, The Branch Manager, Sri Manikandan, S/o Sri Natarajan, Age 3g years, 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 56 documents came to be marked at Ex.A3 to 456.

¶74

No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

¶75

None of the defendants appeared at the time of hearing, when the matter was posted for arguments and perused the records of the case. However, heard the learned counsel for the applicant Bank.

¶76

Following points arise for my consideration:

¶77

1. Whether Plaintiff / Applicant Bank proves its case as contended in the plaint / application?

¶78

What Order?

¶79

¶80

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

OA No.658 /2022

REASONS

72, The Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank came to be examined as AW.1. His affldavit by way of evidence reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above-referred Ex.A3 to A56 which clearly establish the case of the Applicant Bank to allow the present oA. Added to this, the Defendants have remained absent, hence it is to be construed that Defendants have admitted the entire case^pleaded by the Applicant Bank in the present oA.

¶85

Therefore, for these reasons. present OA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the Applicant Bank.

¶86

ORDER

¶87

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

¶88

In the event of failure of the Defendants to^pay the said OA amount, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the \i Schedule movable^property and Schedule immovable item No.

¶89

oA No.6s8 /2022

¶90

1 property in accordance with law as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶91

In spite of sale of the Schedule movable property and Schedule immovable item No. 1 property, if the OA amount is not fully realised, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the persons and other properties of the Defendants in accordance with law.

¶92

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 Certificate for the amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.

¶93

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.

¶94

The Office is directed to issue, as far as possible, free copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶95

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21.t day of Decembet,2023)

¶96

\ (rMrrlz Au) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶97

oA No.558 /2022

¶98

ANNEXURES

¶99

Witness Examined for the Apolicant Bank: AW-1 : Sri Manikandan

¶100

The Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank List of Documents Exhibited for the Aoolicant Bank: Ex.A-1 : Affidavit of AW-1 Ex.A-2 : List of Documents

¶101

Ex.A-3 to A-58 : 56 documents

¶102

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶103

Nil -

¶104

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶105

Nit -

¶106

' ''l'rb (IMTIAZ ALI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶107

-aa-

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S Shwetha Rubber Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S Shwetha Rubber Products

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

Canara Bank versus M/s Li- Style

Canara Bank versus Messers Yuvaraj Trading

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shriram Trading

Tilak Raj Pathak versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajender Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Santhosh Enterprises