Allowed

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

DRT8 Aug 2024OA/165/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by City Union Bank Limited for recovery of a loan of Rs. 88,88,019.08 from M/s. Nikita Traders and other relatives who availed a credit facility and failed to repay, dismissing their denial of documents and foreclosure.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 88,88,019.08 with 17% interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants' assets.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Nikita Traders — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 8rH DAy oF AUGUsr, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.165 ol 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

City Union Bank Limited, Branch at 4-3-75/2, Hammedpura, Near Netaji chowk, Opp to Big bazar, Adilabad - 504 OO1 Represented by its Power of Attorney

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Nikita Traders, Regd office at 6-6-tt/3/L78, Gung road, Adilabad - 504 001. Represented by its^proprietrix

¶10

SmtSwarupa.

¶11

Smt Alluri Swarupa, w/o A. Ramesh Reddy,

¶12

R/ o 4-5-56/ C, Vidyanagar, Aditabad - 504 001.

¶13

Sri Alluri Ramesh Reddy, s/o A. Ganga Reddy,

¶14

' major, R/o 4-5-56/C, VidyanagarAdilabad - 504 001. Telangana State.

¶15

Telangana State. Defendants Counsel for the Pa For the Applicant Rajendra Prasad For the Defendants^{:oBrrto'ril t{} Dinesh Kumar 'k,--ry.ry

¶16

(OA.No.165 of 2022)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for

¶19

recovery of a total sum of Rs,gg,gg,Ol9.Ogps (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight thousand Nineteen and paise Eight only) with future interest @ 17% with monthry rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern and defendant no.2 is the proprietor and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the loan availed. Defendants 1 and 2 availed credit facilities of Rs.45.00 lakhs and executed sanction letter, demand promissory note, OD rules, consent letter, letter of continuity, registered memorandum of deposit of tifle deeds dated 26.03.2014 and sale deed dated 31.12.2001. The credit facility was enhanced to Rs.60.00 lakhs and executed various documents. Defendant no.3 mortgaged the schedule property to the Applicant bank to secure the said loan facilities by depositing original tiUe deeds in favour of Applicant bank.

¶21

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said I and failed to keep up the lil repayment sched u le,,,f's6uch- t p acc-&1t\as classified as N pA on d$ 30.11.2020 and issLiig j r^jr demand i-otice dateSl\bZ.OS.ZOZr. Inspite of 0 I lU0 71Pl : - ,i t! ..,1 .^tl U.ry

¶22

(OA.No.165 of 2022)

¶23

demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.88,88,0lg.Oaps (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight thousand Nineteen and paise Eight only) with future interest @ 17olo with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization . Hence the OA.

¶24

The Defendants No.2 & 3 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents with the Applicant bank. The defendants denied the creation of mortgage over application schedule property by deposit of title deeds. It is contended that the signatures of defendant no.2 were forged and defendant no.3 was made a scape goat under undue influence of Sri A. Chandrasekhar Reddy along with bank officials. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶25

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri^p. Sai Kumar, BranchManager as AW.1 and through him marked 18 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.19. As against this, the defendants did not ch duce any evidence on their behalf in support of their id not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to coftrovert Ch ief ence. Inspite of t repeated adjournments,-lu',"⁰ AtAH0u?lB r"il to file evidence .ir, ,, !

¶26

(OA.No.16s of 2022)

¶27

Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Atfidavit was closed.

¶28

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶30

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

6' As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant 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 praced any materiar documents to show their bonafides for estabrishing that they paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶34

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants.

¶35

The defendants have not ry@!. to give evidence to n e d n i^{*B(' u n'[ m e n "} l:':1' : : : l:^": ::''l,^{!,1y = E} the oA and no supportiiiqdocumenT3 fited foi .-: 08tttc?nr^ll blishing that they have not created 16slr,iiortg"ag"e."""un36l suil/fcircumstances, the Rh,,"".,"$ Sn@

¶36

(oA.No.16s of 2022)

¶37

evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.1B stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendant is liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶38

Point No.ii)

¶39

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

¶40

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.88,88,O19.08ps (Rupees Eighty Eaght Lakhs Eighty Eight thousand Nineteen and paise Eight only) with future interest @ l7o/o from date of application till the date of realization;

¶41

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

¶42

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 rea lization

¶43

6 10. The Applicant Bank is th E-",,] 0 B AUO 7rl2f : "f^- ^.:f fu;firy

¶44

(OA.No.165 of 2022)

¶45

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

¶46

L2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of Aug'2024)

sdt_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

rt,ryffi ,-fl'j'l;$';*'

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Nikita 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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Pemmada Aneesh

Smt Ca Suvarna Kumari versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vinodini Filling Station

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/.S. Sri Anjaneya Family Restaurant

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Murli Polymer

Mr Iytha Yugender versus State Bank of India