Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mallikarjuna Milk Products

DRT17 Jul 2023OA/658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for joint and several recovery of approximately Rs. 26.52 lakhs with future interest from the respondents, securing the claim via mortgage and allowing recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 26,51,969.34 with future interest; mortgage property offered as security; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Mallikarjuna Milk Products — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF ]ULY, 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 658 OF 2022

¶4

Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Branch at above Batia Bakary, Alwal, Medchal Malkajigiri District, Telangana State, Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mallikarjuna Milk Products Rep by its Proprietor Lamba Bhagya yadav, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.26 C, Chittraiah Colony, Venkatapuram Village, Alwal, Medchal Malkajigiri District, Telangana State.

¶8

Lamba Sahadev Yadav S/o Late Lamba Mallaiah Yadav, Aged 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.25-1l17, Bhudevi Nagar, Alwal, Medchal Malkajigiri District-15.

¶9

. .. Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr,B.Praveen Kumar

Defendants

:Exparte

oA.65al2022

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank ftled the present OA for the recovery from the defendants jointly and severally a sum of Rs.26,51,969.34ps with future interest @ 10.40olo p.a. with monthly rests frcm L2.06.2022 till the date of realisation along with costs, and in default, for sale of OA schedule property.

¶17

The Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set exparte on 20.07.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Smt.lvlonali Ojha, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 21 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.21.

¶19

4- Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration ls:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule propeftY?

¶22

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 Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally tiable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. rfuo

¶23

oA.6s8/2022

¶24

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.658/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.26,51,969.34ps with future interest @ t0.600/o p.a simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debq

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

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 17th day ofJuly,2023).

¶33

7/"!K," (MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mallikarjuna Milk Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mallikarjuna Milk 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

State Bank of India versus M/S Sanika Trading Company and Another

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Azad Mobile Enterprises

Bank of India versus M/S Moni Enterprises

Bank of India versus Rbs Ent Udyog

State Bank of India versus M/S Bharat Tractors

Punjab National Bank versus Narinderjit Singh