Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy

DRT20 Nov 2024OA/107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT allowed the original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs.99 lakhs from the defendants, holding evidence sufficient to establish liability and rejecting claims regarding RBI guidelines otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to jointly and severally pay Rs.99,57,659.65 with future interest; permitting action on mortgaged property and personal assets; directing issue of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.1O7 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, (erstwhile Andhra Bank) Bhongir branch, station road, Bhongir - 508 116. TS. Represented by its Chief Manager Mr. Utpal Kumar Holding a valid Authority letter

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri DareddyVenu Gopal Reddy, s/o Bal Reddy, aged 56 years, H.No.7l-74-l/2/A,

¶9

New H.No.11-t4-27 , Plot No.B-18/1, Alkapuri, ( Ha ripu ri colony) Saroornagar Mandal, LB Nagar Municipality Ranga Reddy dist - 500 036.

¶10

Sri Dareddy Sai Kumar, S/o D. Venu Gopal Reddy, Aged 30 years,

¶11

H.No.1L-14-L/2/A,

¶12

New H.No.11-L4-27, Plot No.B-18/1, Alkapuri, (Haripuri colony) Saroornagar Mandal, LB Nagar Municipality Ranga Reddy dist - 500 036.

¶13

1
Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Sri T. Sasi Kumar

Defendants

Sri G. Dinesh Kumar

(oA. No.107l2022)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.99,57,659.65ps (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Six hundred Fifty Eight and paise Sixty five only) with future interest @ 10.30o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a class-1 civir contractor avaired overdraFt facility of Rs.75.00 lakhs and defendant no.2 is the guarantor to the roan avaired from Appricant Bank. The defendants executed composite agreement dated 2t.06.2021, guarantee agreement, retter of continuity etc. The defendant no.1 executed memorandum of deposit of title deeds of schedule mentioned property and offered with an intent to secure the repayment to the Applicant bank.

¶23

It is submitted by the Defendants tres ancl failed to [e up the 2Il^NCUmt T repayment schedule, as such the accou'ni wjs iiissirieti s NPA on o^o'' 27.0g.202L. Inspite of demands .radei'bv ; defenda nt TB no.1 has not regularized the account, nt bank issued

¶24

demand notice dated 01.10.2021 but the defendants did not come

¶25

(oA. No.107/2022)

¶26

forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.99,57,6Sg.6Sps (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Six hundred Fifty Eight and paise Sixty five only) with future interest @ 10.30% p.a with monthly rests from date of applicationtill realization. Hence the OA.

¶27

The Defendant No.1 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It is submitted that the applicant bank charged penar interest which is against to the raw raid by Hon,bre Supreme court of India in Ravindra's case. It is further contended that the applicant bank failed to produce change of interest rates charged in loan account. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.1 examined himserf as DW.1 but not fired any documents.

¶28

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Heard the arguments.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consiOerafiln a

¶31

uS,. de in i) Whether the Appticant Bank has pr?Wdlil!$ m, OA against the defendants ?

ii) To what relief ?

Point No.i):

(oA. No.107l2022 )

sri utpalkumar, chief Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on beharf of the Applicant crearry deposed about the riabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.50 exhibited by the Appricant bank crearry estabrish the liability of the defendants. The Appricant bank fired a part satisfaction memo stating that defendants paid a sum of Rs.20,00,506/-.

¶36

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is in noway herpfur to him. The defendant No.1 having taken the prea that the applicant bank did not foilow the RBI guiderines and that the present oA was barred by rimrtation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Applicant Bank makes crear that ail the rerevant documents are executed by the defendant No.1 in the normal course of transaction. The defendant No.1 very vaguery contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant No.l and 2 are liable to pay the oA claim. considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant No.1 is not tena icant bank is entiUed r8' *Nrore, to claim the OA amoun 'ffr def ntr. the oA craim * deserves to be allowed tD4dfifF,ha$hts Na, 1'and 2. t \s

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

(oA.No.107 12022)

¶39

B' In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶40

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.99,57,65g.65ps (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Fifty seven Thousand six hundred Fifty Eight and paise Sixty five only) with future interest @ 10.30o/o p.a from date of applicationtill the date of realizationLESS a sum of Rs.2OrOO t5O6/- paid by defendants.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

10' The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶44

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo ks from the date
of receipt of order.
,{f" ffi
f5}
13.Issue Recovery certificate accor:dingly.Z 0 ,1gV Zmt *
I
A"J
14. Communicate a copy of the order to'the parties
'!, :']r. /

¶45

(oA.No.107l2o22l

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of Nov' 2024)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

2 0 ilCIu zut

'ff:fr:,#1,'t& {#'Itg'Te""

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy

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

Ananda Ratna Rajakumar Bunga versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Ashok Kumar B versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., versus M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Shri. Shakuntala Narender

State Bank of India versus Mr Archakam Balakrishna