Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Konark Enterprises

DRT4 Jan 2024OA/111/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an Order Application filed by City Union Bank Ltd. for the recovery of dues including OSL term loan, Dharani Special loan, and FITL Adhoc limit. The tribunal held that the bank established its case and allowed the OA to the tune of Rs. 27,00,606.44 plus interest and costs, declaring defendants jointly liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 27,00,606.44 plus interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Konark Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.111 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

City Union Bank Ltd., Warangal branch, Warangal district, Telangana State, Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Konark Enterprises,

¶10

Represented by its proprietor, S_ri Peddisainath, S/o Srisailam, Male, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/ o 9- 10-92, Durgeshwara Swamy Temple, Warangal.

¶11

Sri Peddisrinath,

¶12

s/o Srisailam, male, Hindu, aged about 50 years,

¶13

R/ o 9- 10-92, Durgeshwara Swamy Temple, Warangal.

¶14

SmtPeddiswa rna Latha,
W/o Sri Peddisrinath, female,
Hindu, aged about 39 years,
R/o 9-10-92, Durgeshwara
Swamy Temple, Wa
Defendants
Counsel for the pa
%"%
For the Applicant
i . Laxmi Chaya
o{lAN2rt2rmtt
For the Defendants 1
Shiva Shankar
kr-..t ,,,, ,,*.rr#
Kit;';;;;9

¶15

(OA.No.111 of 2023)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.27,OO,6O6.44ps (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Six Hundred Six and paise Forty four only) i.e.,

¶18

a) a sum of Rs.9,99,911.63ps under osL term roan with interest @ 73o/o p.a with monthly rests ;

¶19

b) A sum of Rs.16,79,135.48ps under Dharani Special loan with interest @ 14.50o/o p.a with monthly rests;

¶20

c) A sum of Rs.21,559.33ps under FITL Adhoc rimit with rate of interest @ 15.75olo p.a along with 2o/o p.a penal interest from date of filing of oA tilr the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedure to oA.

¶21

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietory concern and defendant no.2 is sole proprietor and defendant no.3 is the wife of 2nd defendant. The defendants avaired oSL Term roan of Rs.12.00 rakhs, Dharani Speciar loan of Rs.12 rakhs towards business requirements. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor and agreed to the terms and conditions contained in sanction letter. The said facilities are collaterally secured by way of property more fully 'l:gt described in the ava il[ loan facilities, the defendants failed to ,,rO^the..terrns[ of * n, hence the f g-, ^s t'-,C3. - _oa# Weesry

¶22

(OA.No.111 of 2023)

¶23

applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on L7.4.202L & 03.6.2021 and issued demand notice dated 18.08.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

3' Ld counser for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire written statement.

¶25

Shri I. Krishna Kishore, BranchManager oF the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A,1 to A.19.

¶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

¶28

prayed for?

¶29

Though Defendant counsel filed vakalath did not file written statement. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank wag:examin - d he exhibited relevant .,,!:t^{..;;.: .} .1. documents as Ex.A1 to A.11 9 . 'j',' ' 'In -I-n view .,r of i'r ,^{I hold} that the Appticant Bank has estabil:hed g.t.uiT.Iuf,glp ,nu oA asainst "lhgir.

¶30

(OA.No.111 of 2023)

¶31

the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entiued to recover

¶32

the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.27,OO,6O6.44ps (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Six Hundred Six and paise Forty four onty) i.e.,

¶35

a) a sum of Rs.9,99,911.63ps under OSL term loan with interest @ L3o/o p.a)

¶36

b)A sum of Rs.16,79,135.48ps under Dharani Special loan with interest @ 14.50o/o p.a;

¶37

c)A sum of Rs.21,559.33ps under FITL Adhoc limit with rate of interest @ 15.75olo p.afrom date of firing of oA tirr rearization.

¶38

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶39

property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of

¶40

the debt due.

¶41

11' the Appricant Bank is arso entiiled to proceed against the person and Properties of defendant No.2 &. Properties of defendant no.1

¶42

¶43

(oA.No.111 of 2023)

¶44

12, The Applicant Bank entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶45

The Applicant shall a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶46

of receipt of order.

¶47

Issue Recovery ce accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the p.A., by-her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4thday of 24)

¶50

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶51

i'
{r" ,t:'-ffi,-qF
,' , ^'l
i:
;i .. 0 l, i^il 202{
i \ ri:t
i.r_:-4i . l,
i-'. -"-.1 ,iit
.
(-.,., 'l-: 1-- ' i : I_..: r.
. i ,'
. /.t
.,. _*.{

¶52

,IVfi:YW^
,i|:f;f;E!#,

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Konark Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Konark Enterprises

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Annepalli Linga Reddy

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Sri Deepthi Prints

Indian Bank versus M/S Aarthi Enterprises

The South Indian Bank Limited versus Smt Chilakapudi Shanta Kumari

Union Bank of India versus Mr.Bollimpalli Pardhasaradhi

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Vivek