Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Gatla Ravinder

DRT8 Nov 2024OA/199/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim against the respondents for recovery of a housing loan of Rs. 23,06,229 along with interest and costs, holding the bank entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 23,06,229 with interest at 10.50% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Gatla Ravinder — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.t99 of 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Warangal branch, Warangal district, Telangana State Represented by its authorized officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

GatlaRavinder, s/o Veeraiah, aged 53 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.13_6_14!, Matwada, Warangal _ 506 002.

¶9

ManasaGatla

¶10

w/o RavinderGatla, :9"q.46^{years, occ:housewife,} R/o H.No. 13- 6- I4t, Matwada, Warangat - 506 OO2. 3. Mr. A. Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Shankaraiah, aged 63 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.f5_ft_i, Ramannapet, Warangal.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the parties:

¶13

For the Applicant Momin Mohammed Rafiq For the Defendants 1 &2 ridhar Reddy Defendant no.3 * 0 I^ll0I zmt ? ,,r}

¶14

(oA. No.19el2023)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,06,229l_ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Six thousand Two hundred and Twenty Nine only) with subsequent interest @ 10.50% p.awith monthly rests along with penal interest @ additiona I 2o/o p.afrom date of application ti' the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is borrower and defendants 2 & 3 are co_ appricants' The defendants avaired housing roan of Rs.25.oo rakhs on 14.I1.2012. To secure due repayment of loan, the defendants executed sanction letter, composite agreement dated 14.11.2012. Defendant no'1 mortgaged the immovabre property as mentioned in the schedule to OA by depositing the tiue deeds vide document no.901g/2012 dated t0.L2.2072. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 04.07'2018. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defenda outstanding. Hence this OA. ffi 4.,1\ 0 0 ll[v^7fl1

¶18

(oA. No.199/2023)

¶19

Counsel for defendants 1 and 2 filed vakalath but failed to file Written

¶20

statement. Defendant no.3 called absent and set exparte on

¶21

23.7t.2023.

¶22

Sri VikasKumar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.B.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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?

¶25

Defendant No.3 remained exparte. Counsel for Defendants No.1 & z filed vakalath but not filed WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.B. In view of the above' I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is enti'ed to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶26

B. In the result, the

¶27

costs, as under:

¶28

(oA. No.199/2023)

¶29

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,06,229l_ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Six thousand Two hundred and Twenty Nine only) with subsequent interest @ 10.50% p.a from date of applicationtill the date of realization;

¶30

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶31

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶32

debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

The Applicant Bank is entiUed 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 co

¶38

co n ce rn ed.

¶39

r?i:rated re,n " o o,*,.1,r0;:ff :f:,::,,:::."., "' -

¶40

court on this-llJtglggv ot Nov, 2024) and pronounced bv me in the open

¶41

76<br>sd/-
4F
(G. GOPtCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶42

i.rn'
o#li-xvn;Pasa"'

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Gatla Ravinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Gatla Ravinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Sri Kalapatapu Krishna Murthy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jyothi Food Products

State Bank of India versus M/s. Bairu Consultancy Services Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nst Mart

State Bank of India versus Mr. Jamalpur Balvanth Rao

State Bank of India versus M/S. Chaya And Co.