Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Ram Constructions

DRT12 Jun 2024OA/120/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank India against construction borrowers and guarantors for recovery of Rs. 28,91,636.71 along with interest and costs, directing issuance of a recovery certificate. The bank established the default on the term loan secured by an equitable mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 28,91,636.71 with future interest @ 11.60% per annum and costs; issuance of recovery certificate; joint and several liability of defendants affirmed.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Ram… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFEICER

¶4

OA.No.12O ot 2o.24

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank India, Nayeem Nagar, Hanamkonda b ra nch Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sai Ram Constructions, Represented by Proprietrix, SmtKolluruShobha, W/o Sri K. Prem Kumar, Aged 65 years, self employed 6-B-85, Brahmanwada, Sagara Veedi, Hanamakonda,

¶10

Warangal - 506 001.

¶11

Sri KolluruPrem Kumar, s/o Sri Komuraiah, aged major, 6-8-85, Brahmanwada, Sagara Veedi, Hanamakonda, Warangal - 506 001.

¶12

Sri Nagapuri Ramesh, s/o Sri Rama Swamy, aged major, 3-14-613 / B, vinayakanagar, KUC X road, Hanamakonda - 506 OO1.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel fo For the Ap Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal 12 JU}lmt^:* For the De Exparte

¶15

(OA.No.120/2024)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.28,91,636.71ps (Rupees T,rrenty Eight Lakhs Ninety one thousand six Hundred rhifi six and paise seventy one only) with future interest @ 11.600lo p.a with monthry rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realizationand in default for sale of mortgaged immovabre property as described in the schedure to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendants avaired term roan of Rs.40.00 rakhs for running the business in centering works, buirding works. Defendants no.2 & 3 stood as guarantors to roan avaired by defendant no.1. The roan was collaterally secured by equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned property. The defendants executed composite agreement, supplement to composite agreement, general form of guarantee dated 29.07.201g. To secure the loan facility, the defendants deposited the titre deed bearing document no.362L/2006 of sRo, warangar on 25.07.201g. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank w the account as NpA on 27.03.2024. Inspite of iiiil 2020

¶19

(oA. No.120/2024)

¶20

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

¶21

Defendants No.1 to 3 cailed absent and set exparte on 03.06.2024.

¶22

shri K' Uttam, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.12.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arlse for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶25

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

¶26

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, otficial of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.12. 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 Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶27

B. In the result, the

¶28

fffiJ:h^
, as under:

¶29

(oA. No.120/2024)

¶30

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.28,91,636.71ps (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety One thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six and paise Seventy one only) with future interest @ 11.600lo p.a from date of filing of OAtill the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

t4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12ih day of )une'2024) sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER ffi

¶38

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

\i i 12JUilmf ;I
"
^"Y/l
'.* 'oS);i,'i
".-. .',#i--\2;7
--*=?

¶40

IRUE/COPY ^
Lb s V,-1)
as6"t>' !'?-<br>oar-t, uvoEnr'et t.

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Ram Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Ram Constructions

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

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Balaji Fertilizers

Canara Bank versus Sri. Jakkula Rajesh

Jakkula Kanakaiah versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. N.S. Vaishno Devi Developers India Private Limited.

Sri Shiva Sai Industries versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S Neeraja Constructions