Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt Krishna Mushyam

DRT29 Aug 2023OA/934/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery, holding the respondent defendant liable to pay the claimed sum plus future interest and costs after an ex-parte hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to pay Rs. 60,55,449 plus future interest @ 8.75% p.a. simple, confirming the mortgage security, and directing a Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Union Bank of India versus Smt Krishna Mushyam — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), t4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 934 OF 2022

¶4

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank), Banjara Hills Branch Hyderabad, Telangana-500034. Rep by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus Smt. Krishna Mushyam, W/o. tvlushyam Srinivas, Aged: 52 Years, Occ:^private Employee, R/o. 1-8-519/8, 8/7,2,Ftat No. 4O2, Anuradha Residency, Chikkadpally, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500020.

¶7

...Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant Mrs. M. Kanaka Durga Defenda nts Exparte

¶9

:: ORDER::

¶10

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery from the defendant a sum of Rs. 60,55,449l- as on 28.09.2022 with future interest till the date of reali sation arons with cosVrlKib

¶11

oa.No.934/2022

¶12

Summons served on sole defendant through paper publication, she was set exparte on 13.03.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶13

The Applicant Bank examined K. Gopala Krishna, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶14

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

¶15

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶16

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule property?

¶17

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶18

In the result, the present Original Application No.g34/2O22 is allowed as under; -

¶19

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 60,55,449l- with future interest @ 8.75o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization; dWn

¶20

oa.No.934/2022

¶21

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 debt;

¶22

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

¶23

it) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶24

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

¶25

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶26

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 29$ day of August,2023).

¶27

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Smt Krishna Mushyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt Krishna Mushyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Abdul Awal

Canara Bank versus Nanda

Shri Maheshkuar Dinesrao Thmme versus L and T Housing Finance Ltd.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Bommakka

Mr Pankaj Kumar versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs.P.Bhagyalaxmi