Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Vishwarajaa Industries

DRT5 Jan 2024OA/134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Originated Application (OA) for recovery of Rs. 62,57,515.04 with interest, finding the bank established its claim against the defendants, the proprietary concern, the proprietor, and the guarantor.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs. 62,57,515.04 with interest; permission to realize debt from secured assets and personal properties; issuance of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vishwarajaa Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE srH DAy oF JANUARv,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.134 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Kandikal Branch, tB-5-922/924, Outside Lal Darwaja Road, Kandikal, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 253. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Vishwarajaa Industries, Sy.No.247 &. 249, Muppireddypally, Near TSIIC Auto Park, Toopran Mandal, Medak district, Telangana - 502 336. Represented by its Prop: Thagirchi Jayeswararao,

¶10

Mr. ThagirchiJayeswara Rao, s/o T. Venkateswarlu, aged 53 years, Occ: business, R/o F,No.44B, Sai Krupa Apartments, Kompally, Hyderabad , TS - 500 014.

¶11

SmtMehrajunisa, w/o Sri Md. Mazhar, aged 36 years, occ: housewife, R/o H. No.8-3 -230 / F / t3, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, TS - 500 045.TS - 500 045.500 045.045.

¶12

Hyderabad, TS - 500 045.TS - 500 045.500 045.045. Defendants Counsel for the Parti 7 r'.^{-- "'r#} For the Applicant fi. J::i^: Pavan Kumar For the Defendan

¶13

(oA.No.134/2022)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.62,57,g15.O4ps (RupeesSixty Two Lakhs Fifty seven thousand Eight hundred and Fifteen and paise four only) i.e., a sum of Rs.59,52,735.04 + Rs.3,O5,Og0/_ with interest @ 11.85% p.awith monthly rests from date of OA till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as described in the schedules ,.A & 8,, to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 as proprietor and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor avaired cash credit limit of Rs.4g.50 rakhs vide sanction retter dated 20'09'2019. Defendants 2 & 3 executed guarantee agreement on 31.07.2019. Defendant no.2 representing defendant no.1 firm executed hypothecation agreement hypothecating a, movabres as described in the schedure to oA, As a security to the roan avaired, the defendants secured the roan with coilaterar security as mentioned in the schedule to OA and defendant no.2 dep_osited the sale deed No.365BB/2019 dated r availing the loan facilities, the defendants rddb s of sanction, hence the i;y applicant bank to class the account as NpA on W Li

¶17

(oA.No.134/2022)

¶18

01.03.2021 and issued demand notice dated t9.04.202L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 13.11,2023.

¶20

shri Mohdsamiyuddin, Asst.Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Defendants called 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.14. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to made in the OA with

¶25

future interes tana costs.^(*

0 5 .tl

*
a

(oA. No.134/2022 )

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

¶30

The Defendants are joinuy and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.62,57,g15.O4ps (RupeesSixty Two Lakhs Fifty Seven thousand Eight hundred and Fifteen and paise four only) i.e., a sum of Rs.59,52,735,04 + Rs.3,05,080/_with interest @ 11.85o/o p.afrom date of OAtill realization.

¶31

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated movabres as described in the schedure to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

The Appricant shaI fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

., transcribed by her, corrected. signed and pronounced by me in the open
\ly of lan'2024)
.^
,* sd/-
t.. (G. GOPTCHAND)
q
PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S Vishwarajaa Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Vishwarajaa Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The South Indian Bank Limited versus Smt Chilakapudi Shanta Kumari

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Konark Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Mr.Bollimpalli Pardhasaradhi

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Vivek

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gadmoor Rani

State Bank of India versus M/S. S.R Agencies and Fmcg