Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Vigneshwara Transport

DRT7 Mar 2024OA/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Arbitrary Proceeding filed by City Union Bank against transport firm and guarantors to recover a loan debt of approximately Rs.1.29 crore along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.1,29,38,214/1+ interest; recovery certificate issued; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged and other properties.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Vigneshwara Transport — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.10 of 2023

¶4

Between :

¶5

City Union Bank Limited, Karimnagar branch at Kaman road, Karimnagar, Telangana - 505 001. Represented by its Power of Attorney

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Vigneshwara Transport, D.No.1, Sy.No.178, 1638, Alugunoor, Thimmapurmandal, Karimnagar - 505 527. Represented by its partners Sri NachuKamaraju and SmtMadhammal. K

¶9

Also at

¶10

D.No.920/D, Krishna nagar, Near TV gardens, Bommakal Rural, Karimnagar, Hyderabad - 505 001.

¶11

Also at

¶12

D. No.B-82l9/A, Bommakal, Karimnagar, Hyderabad - 505 001.

¶13

Sri NachuKamaraju,
s/o Muthu, male, occ: business, ., :,.',l.";l:;N<br>R/o D.No.920/D, Krishna nagat, ./'.. :.r --'.1-. "tF+1...-'
Near TV Qr rral K :rimnanar gardens, Bommakal li li,f- ft t,r ,:- i:,7 Ff a.r-ltd '; t?;\\ 'A<br>Rural, arimnagar, g r:f'
Hyderabad - sos oo1.
il; [ 7 fiAR 2U{ ;
.{-i&-,",,--.,*or{J
WfivY'

¶14

(OA.No.10 of 2023)

¶15

SmtMadhammal K, Wo^{NachuKamaraju,} Occ: business, R/oD. No.920/D, Krishna nagar, Near TV gardens, Bommakal Rural, Karimnagar, Hyderabad - 505 001.

¶16

SmtAruna Rani E, W/o EnugorthiJaganMohana cha ry, Female, R/o H.No.6-6-244, Sharma nagar, Karimnagar mandal, Karimnagar - 505 001. Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant : Sri Sri R. Rajendra Prasad For the Defendants 1to 3 : Exparte Defendant No.4 Sri P. Bhiksheshwar

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,29,38,214l- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Eight thousand Two hundred and Fourteen only) with future interest @ 15.5olo p.a with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averm Applicant Bank states that defendant N nd defendants 2 and 3

¶21

(oA.No.10 of 2023)

¶22

being partners of defendant no.1 availed OD facility for a sum of Rs.1.00 crore and executed sanction letter dated 2l.l2.2}tg, promissory note and letter of continuity dated 30.l2.2}lg. Defendants 2 and 4 stood as guarantors and executed guarantee agreement dated 30.12.2019/ Defendants 2 and 4 deposited the title deeds dated 29.09.2015 and regd memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 29.09.2015. Subsequenfly the defendants availed ECLGS for a sum of Rs.19,80,000/- and executed various necessary documents. Again the defendants availed STOPD limit i.e., short term increase in OD limit for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- and availed necessary documents. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 20.10.2022.Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants 1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 14.0g.2023. Counsel for defendant no.4 filed vakalath but not filed Written statement.

¶24

Shri Subhash Raj, Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 relev ments, which are marked as Ex.A.1 *\ ?;J?.q '--^.l

¶25

(oA.No.10 of 2023)

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶28

¶29

1. Defendants 1 to 3 called absent and set exparte. Counsel defendant no.4 filed vakalath but not filed WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.31. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶30

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶31

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,29,38,2L41- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Eight thousand Two hundred and Fourteenonly) with futu 15.5% p.a from the date of

¶32

a^ppl ication till the datq/.fff"geaii i:l!^"'

¶33

(OA,No'10 of 2023)

¶34

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

t2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶37

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶38

t4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of March' 2024)

¶41

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

I'RUtr COPY
oit;&
esst.ffi'?'4
DRT.I, T'Y85RAB,4O.

¶43

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Vigneshwara Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Vigneshwara Transport

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus E. Varaprasad

Canara Bank versus M/S. Gayatri Water Plant

M S Shiridi Sai Mineral Water Plant versus Bank of Baroda

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Doddikadi Srinivas

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ravinder Rangu

Vajra Paraboiled Rice Mills Private Limited versus State Bank of India