Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lakshmi Ganesh Rice Industries

DRT10 Dec 2024OA/134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 4.62 crores against a rice industry firm and its partners, confirming the defendants' joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 4,62,00,233/- with future interest and costs; applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged and other properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE lOrH DAy OF DECEMBER,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.134 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, D. No. 1-2618/8, L-261 8/ A, Aleti Kasaia hVenkatarava mma Complex, Suryapet road, Kodad, Suryapet district, TS - 508 206. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Ivl/s. Lakshmi Ganesh Rice Industries, Situated at D.No.4-80, Anumanchipalli village - 521 175, Jaggaiahpetmandal, Krishna dist Represented by its Managing^partner ThummepalliMallikarjuna Rao And Mrs. TummepalliPadmavathi.

¶10

l,lr, ThummepalliMallikarjuna Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 46^years, Occ: business, R/o 13-170, Sy.No.27511A1, Muthyala road, Jaggaiahpet town and mandal, Krishna dist - 521 175.

¶11

SmtTummepalliPadmavathi, W/o T. Mallikarjuna Rao, Aged 40 years, occ: business, R/o 13-170, Sy.No.27511A1, Muthyala road, laggaiahpet town and mandal, Krishna dist - 521 175.

¶12

7e*.',}.*<br>: looECzrzf
rn
qb,r-tn$
Defendants

¶13

(oA. No.134l2023 )

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant Sri MVS Prasad For the Defendants No.1 &3 Expa rte Defendant No.2 Sri L.P. Mahesh

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.4,62,OO,233/-^{(Rupees Four Crores} Sixty Twolakhs Two Hundred and thirty three only)^i.e., a) A sum of Rs.3,91,98,7121' in^respect of^{cash creditloan with} future interest @ 10.80%^p.a with monthly^{rests from date of} filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.70,01,521/- in^{respect of term loan accountwith} future interest @ 7.50%^{p'a with monthly rests from date of filing} of OA till the date of realization;

¶19

and in default for sale of^{mortgaged propertiesas describedin} the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application,^{the Applicant Bank} states that the defendants^{No.1 is a} partnership firm represented bY

¶21

defendantsno.2&3as nd guarantors for the^loan avaired by defendant ^"ffi,ffira nts availed cash credit or Rs.3-50.00.000/- oii'.iS+.r r.z&lh ndants No.2 & 3 * m fully described in _-I the schedule to oA anU\ei-e&ted demaffi$. issory note, letter of @g$lF'

¶22

(oA. No.134/2023)

¶23

undertaking dated 04.11.2020^{and memorandum of deposit of title} deeds dated 17.07.2018.^{Again the defendants availed term loan of} Rs.70.00 lakhs on 30.05.2020 under^{Union GuaranteedEmergency} Credit line and executed demand^{promissory note, letterof} guarantee and term loan agreement.

¶24

It is submitted by the Applicant bank^{that the Defendants} have availed the said loan facilities^{and failed to keep up the} repayment schedule, as such the^{account was classifiedas NPA on} 27.11.2021 and issued demand^{noticedated 29.LL.202L.Inspiteof} demands made by^{Applicant the defendants have not regularized the} account, and the defendants did^{not comeforward to repaythe} same. The total claim of^{Applicant against defendantsis} ofRs.4,62,OO,233l-^{(Rupees Four Crores Sixty Two LakhsTwo} Hundred and thirty three only)^{withfutureinterest@} 10.80o/op.a and @ 7.50o/o^{p.a respectivelywith monthly rests from} date of application till^{the date of realization.Hence the OA'}

¶25

Defendants 1 and 3 remained exparte. The Defendants^No.2filed written statement and denied the averments madeⁱⁿ OA.^{It is} admitted that the^cashcredit loan was availed and^{accePted the} terms and conditions. by the defendants^that defendant firm^is id amounts to the extended time anfl fter reopening of applicant bank 1 0 DEC rfl{ at the account of defendants business.

¶26

(oA'No'13a/2023)

¶27

defenda nts was classified as^{NPA without providing clarificationof} cash credit loan monthly installments.^{Henceprayedfor dismissalof} oA.

¶28

The^{Applicant Bank in support of its claim' filed evidence affidavit} duly sworn^{in by Sri B'S'S'KrishnaKanthNayak'Manageras AW'1} and through^{her marked 36 documents as Ex'A'1 to A'26'As} against this,^{the defendants did not choose to adduceany evidence} on their^{behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose} to cross^{examine the AW'1 to controvert his Chief Evidence'Inspite} of repeated^{acljournments, the defendantsfailed to file evidence} Affidavit,^{hence the right of filing DefendantEvidenceAffidavit was} closed on^22.11'2024'

¶29

I have^{perused the documents placed on record'}

¶30

Now,^{the points that arise for consideration are:}

¶31

i) Whether^{the Applicant Bankhas proved its claim as madein} OA against^{the defendants ?}

¶32

ii) To what^relief?

¶33

Point No,i): '6\ - -lt -s and also^as Per^the fuv the^Aihtlcant 6. As^{per the documents} en statement,^{it is} admissions^madebY from the^APPlicant very clear^{that the} i,r;-?/HYo( *Eyrnx

¶34

(OA. No.13al2023)

¶35

Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶36

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not mortgaged the immovable properties. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A. 1 to A.26 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

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

¶39

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.4,62,0O,233/- (Rupees Four Crores Sixty

¶40

Two Lakhs Two Hund three only) i.e., a) A sum of Rs.3 of cash credit loan with 'fu future int I^{10.80o/o-p.afrom} e of filing of OA till the 1 0 0Fu^7rl7{ date of real t, , l'h,#'t#?

¶41

(oA. No.13al2023 )

¶42

b) A sum of Rs.70,0L,52I/in respect of term loan account with future interest @ 7.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶43

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgagedproperties as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dactated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the loth day of Dec'2024)

¶50

sdl-

¶51

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

ffivryru

¶53

"'+f';,ffi?liEi''

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lakshmi Ganesh Rice Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lakshmi Ganesh Rice Industries

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Susheela Authomotive

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Dhanavath Balu Naik

Ms Umarani Commision Agent versus Omprakash Deora People Co. Operative

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mr. J. Gopal Rao

Union Bank of India versus Mr. G. Srinivasa Sarma

K Padma versus Iifl Home Finance