Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Malineni Sayamma Poultry Firm

DRT11 Jul 2024OA/10/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an OA for recovery of a loan facility. Finding defendants absent and bank's claim substantiated by documents, the tribunal awarded recovery of principal, interest, and costs, enforcing rights over hypothecated and mortgaged assets. (80 words)

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.55,35,480 plus interest @10.75% p.a. Costs awarded. Recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Malineni Sayamma Poultry Firm — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF )ULY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.1O ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Branch at Shadnagar, Maha boobna ga r district, Telangana State. Represented by its authorized officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

MalineniSayamma pou ltry Farm, Represented by its proprietor Mrs. MalineniSayamma, aged B2 years, occ: business, R/o Sy.No.633 & 634, BV nagar, Chattanpalli, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District - 509 215.

¶10

Mr. M. Subba Rao, s/o Mr. M.^peddanna, aged about B3 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.9-54/L, BV nagar, Chattanpalli, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy district - 509 215.

¶11

Mr. G. Vasanth Rao,

¶12

i#,tilll};*aiX;ffi\Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District - 509 215. 11

¶13

11 a nts Murthy Expa rte

¶14

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

(oA.No.10/2024)

ORDER

The Applrcant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.55,35,4gol_ (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Thirty five thousand Four hundred and Eighty only) with further interest @ 10.750lo p.a with monthry rests from the date of application ti[ the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated assets and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 availed poultry loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs on mortgage of schedure mentioned property deposited the titre deed no.t6tl/2009 on 23.03.2009 and the document was registered in SRO, Farooqnagar. Defendant no.1 avaired extension of credit rimits to Rs'15 rakhs and extended memorandum of deposited tire deeds on 16'05'2011' The defendant no.1 again extended the credit rimits to rs.25 lakhs and extended the mortgage on 24.01.2014. Defendants 1 & 2 executed sD06 hypothecation of goods in favour of appricant bank' Defendant no.3 is the guarantor and offered deed of guarantee dated 24.12.202t in favour of the bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defenda comply the terms of c{f$ni 7'.':i""n B"Et"*flNd^{to classirv the} ."_:,". " i:::"l':aoo account as NpA u"o,..,f,fr",i?,fi}ffi; ril.zozz.rnspite of

¶21

l"J Qa;4"--#

¶22

(OA.No.10/202a)

¶23

several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 29.04.2024.

¶25

Sri Y. VamsidharReddy, Senior Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.30.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Appllcant Bank is

¶28

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶29

7' Defendants cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.30. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶30

B. In the result, the present

¶31

s under:
11JUI m

¶32

(oA.No.10/2024)

¶33

v. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.55,35,4aO/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Thirty five thousand Four hundred and Eighty only) with further interest @ 10.75olo p.a from the date of application till the date of realization.

¶34

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated assets and mortgaged property 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 and 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

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

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to court on this

¶41

cted' sisned and pronounced bv me in the open
kry
sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
0?"1*
,iif';i;1!;';;1^,

Union Bank of India v. Malineni Sayamma Poultry Firm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Malineni Sayamma Poultry Firm

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

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri.Pati Siva Narayana Murthy

Indian Bank versus Mr. S . Ajay Kumar

State Bank of India versus Ark Logistics

State Bank of India versus M/S. Aja Solar a Proprietary Concern

Bank of India versus M/S.Hanuman Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Sri Pailla Vikram Reddy