Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S.Shanmukha Traders

DRT22 Apr 2024OA/112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Outsider Application filed by the Bank for recovery of debts totaling Rs. 49,06,812.72 along with interest and costs. The Court held the Bank established its claim via witness testimony and documents, granting the right to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties of the defendants.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are liable to pay Rs. 49,06,812.72 with interest at 12.25% p.a. from the date of OA minus Rs. 13,20,000 paid. A recovery certificate is issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.112 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1, M/s. Shanmukha Traders, Represented by its^proprietor Sri Kudikala Purushottam, s/o Mallesam, Hindu, aged about 48 years, male, Shutter no.55, New^g rain market, Enumamula, Warangal.

¶10

Sri KudikalaPurushotham, s/o Mallesam, Hindu, aged about 48 years, male, R/o H.No.16-10-1222, Shiva Nagar, Warangal - 506 002.

¶11

J. SmtKudika la Push^pa leela, w/o Sri KudikalaPurushotham,

¶12

Hindu, aged 44 years, female, R/o H.No.16-10-t222,

¶13

Shiva Nagar, Warangal - 506 002.

¶14

Defenda nts

¶15

Counsel for the Parties: - - ^'/r -.,2.^*'t 't:-'ⁱ For the Applicant i, .,i-' Laxmi Chaya For the Defendants rnthi kumar 22 APi

¶16

(OA.No.112 of 2023)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,O6,812.72ps (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Six thousand Eight hundred Twelve and paise Seventy two only) with subsequent interest @ 12.25o/o p.a along with 2o/o penal interest with monthly rests from the date of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Proprietory concern and defendant no.2 is its sole proprietor and defendant no.3 is the wife of defendant no.2. The defendants availed SOD limit of Rs.25 lakhs and enhanced the same to Rs.40 lakhs in 2018 and also availed Rs.6.00 lakhs under Covid Crisis credit and executed all necessary documents. The loan facilities were secured by way of hypothecation of charge on stocks, movable assets and also secured by way of equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned property. 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 on 05.04.2021 and issued demand noti 28.09.2021. Inspite of several requests and demantls,. the did not clear the

¶20

outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

(OA.No.112 of 2023)

¶22

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed written statement.

¶23

Sri I. Krishna Kishore, BranchManager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19. The defendants paid 25olo of the claim amount of Rs.13,2O,OOO/- on 28.04.2022 .

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

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?

¶26

Though counsel for defendants filed vakalath, but not filed written statement. 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.19. In view of the above, I^{hold thatthe} Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA^against the Defendants and hence the Applicant^Bank is^{entitledto recover} the claim made in the OA with future interest and^costs.

¶27

B. In the result, the^present OA^is allowed^{with costs/ as under:}

¶28

The and severally liable to^pay to the App Rs.49,O6,812.72ps (Rupees Forty Nin€i Lakhs Sixttllousand eight hundred Twetve and^paise

¶29

¶30

(OA.No.112 of 2023)

¶31

Seventy two only) with subsequent interest @ 12.25o/o p.a from the date of OA till the date of realizationLESS a sum of Rs. 13,2O,OOO I - paid by defendants.

¶32

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

¶33

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2&3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶38

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of Aptil'2024)

¶39

6.-Vq

¶40

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER t):2?ryk ,i:;';f;1;;';9,.

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S.Shanmukha Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S.Shanmukha Traders

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Srinivasa Packaging Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri. Motor Deepak Kumar

State Bank of India versus Pps Hospitality Services

State Bank of India versus M/S. Agro Food Chronicles Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/S. Be Real Bevarages

M S Shiva Sai Jayalakshmi Tyres versus Punjab National Bank