Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Priyanka Kirana and General Stores

DRT6 Nov 2023OA/905/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru applicant, Union Bank of India, an Applicant, seeking recovery of money of Rs.29 lakhs from respondents, allowed the OA under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, due to defendants' absence and lack of defence, and ordered recovery. This case involves banking recovery under Section 19 of the Rehabilitation of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

What did the court decide?

OA allowed with costs and interest. Bank at liberty to sell schedule properties. Recovery Certificate to be issued. Latest Memo of Calculation required.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Priyanka Kirana and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL . I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 6th day of November, 2023

¶3

Present: Sri Imtiaz Ali presiding Officer

OA No.9Os/2O22

BETWEEN:

Union Bank of fndia

Ground Floor, N4aroor Complex Mohan Market, Station Road Bidar-585 401 Karnataka

¶8

Represented by it's Branch Manger Sri Rajashekar

¶9

.. APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/s. Priyanka Kirana Stores Prop: Sri Sanjay Daniel R/a- Narasimha Jharnan Road Bidar District-585 401

¶12

Sri Sanjay Daniel

¶13

S/o. Sri M.E. Daniel

¶14

Aged about 59 years

¶15

R/a- Narasimha Jharnan Road

¶16

Bidar District-585 401

¶17

3. Smt. Sheelamma

¶18

w/o. Sri Sanjay Daniel

¶19

Aged about 50 years

¶20

R/a- Ndarasimha Jharnan Road Bidar District-585 401

¶21

.. DEFENDANTS

¶22

Counsels on record/appealed foti

¶23

Appljcant I Sri K, Raveendran

¶24

Defendants i Ex-pafte

¶25

FINAL ORDER

¶26

The present OA have been filed by the Applicant Bank

¶27

under Section 19 of the Recovery oF Debts and Bankruptcy

¶28

¶29

OA.No.905/2022

¶30

Act, 1993, seeking^{recovery of moneyof Rs'29,a1,862'07} (Rupees twenty-nine lakhs eighty^{one thousand eight} hundred sixty two and^{paise sevenonlY) togetherwith} costs, interest,^etc.

¶31

The case of the^{ApplicantBank is that the Defendants} have approached^{the Applicant Bank for term loan facilities} The Applicant Bank^{has considered the request of the} Defendants and sanctioned^{the cMTSc of Rs.23,00,000/-on} 29.06.2018 and^{MSI4E of Rs.4,50,000/- on 01'06'2020,in} terms of the^{loan agreements. In orderto securethe Loans,} the Defendants^{have executed documents,viz ,demand} promissory note, letter of authority,^{commondeed of} hypothecation of^{assets,Ietter of undertaking,term loan} agreements and^{composite hypothecationdeedetc',}

¶32

Further, the Defendants^{have agreed to repaythe} above loans with^{variable rateof interests, as applicable from} time to time as^{per the directionsof the HeadOffice/central} Omce of the^{Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of} default and keep^{the accounts regular by paying installments} as and when due^{to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as} detailed in the^{oA by the ApplicantBank.}

¶33

¶34

OA.No.90s/2022

¶35

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. In spite of repeated requests and demands, the Defendants have failed to repay the entire outstanding dues. The Defendants have failed to pay the outstanding dues and hence the recovery process is initiated to recover the dues,

¶36

In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that Defendants are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.29,81,862.O7 (Rupees twenty-nine lakhs eighty one thousand eight hundred sixty two and paise seven only).

¶37

After filing this OA Summons sent to the Defendants through RPAD, which remained unserved and returned with postal remarks "Refused/Unclaimed,,. Hence service held sufficient. When the Defendants were called out, they remained absent and hence placed ex parte.

¶38

fo prove the case of the Applicant Bank, it,s Branch Manager, Sri Vivek Hanumantrao Karpe, has filed his affidavit

¶39

¶40

OA.No.905/2022

¶41

by way of evidence^{the same was considered as evidenceof} AW.1 and marked at^{Ex.A1 and list of documents came to be} marked at Ex.A2 and^{17 documentscame to be markedat} Ex.A3 to A19.

¶42

No evidence on behalf^{of the Defendants.}

¶43

Arguments of Learned^{Counselfor the Plaintiff/} Applicant Bank heard and^{perusedthe records of the case.}

¶44

Following^points arise^{for my consideration:}

¶45

1. Whether Plaintiff/Applicant^{Bank provesits case} as contended in^{the plaint/application?}

¶46

What Order?

¶47

For the following^reasons, I^{answerthe above-} referred^points in the^{following manner:}

¶48

REASONS

¶49

The Branch Manager^{of the Applicant Bank came to be} examined as AW.1. His affidavit^{by way of evidence} reiterated the facts^{pleaded in} the^{plaint and his affidavitis} also corroborated by^{the above-referredEx.A3 to A19 which}

¶50

¶51

OA.No.905/2022

¶52

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

¶53

present oA.

¶54

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

¶55

ORDER

¶56

present OA stands allowed as prayed for with interest and costs.

¶57

In the event of failure of the Defendants to pay the said OA amount, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the Schedule properties in accordance with law as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶58

In spite of sale of the schedule properties, 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.

¶59

¶60

OA.No.905/2022

¶61

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.

¶62

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.

¶63

The Office is directed to issue, as far as^possible, free

¶64

copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶65

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2023)

¶66

(r-,,"\Ai;'" Presiding Officer DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶67

OA.No.90s/2022

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

Witness Examined for the Aoolicant Bank: AW- 1 : Sri Vivek Hanumantrao Karpe

¶70

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

¶71

Ex.A-3 to A-19 : 17 documents

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶73

Nil -

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: _ Ni!-

¶75

¶76

Y (Imdaz Ali) Presiding Officer DRT-f, Bengaluru

¶77

Union Bank of India v. M/S Priyanka Kirana and General Stores

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Priyanka Kirana and General Stores

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

Raju Ramavadh Ravat Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Mrs Nankikaur Pratapsingh Mehra versus Bank of Baroda

Sarasiya dineshbhai Limbabhai versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus MD Arif Kadloor

Bank of Maharashtra versus M S Ullalthi Flexipack Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Satish Bandi