Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Yrk Industries

DRT1 Aug 2024OA/206/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of Rs. 45,17,449.98 along with interest on two loan accounts. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable and ordered proceedings against mortgaged and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 45,17,449.98 including interest; permission to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties granted.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Yrk Industries — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE lsr DAy OF AUGUST, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.2O6 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Chikkadpally branch, H.No.1-1-230/11, Chikkadpally main road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 20. Represented by its Senior Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. YRK Industries,

¶10

Represented by its^proprietor, Sy.No. 150, Dhoolapally IDA,

¶11

Dhoolapally road,

¶12

Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500 014. Telanagana State.

¶13

Mr. Shaikh Leyakath Ali Khan

¶14

(Proprietor), S/o Mehaboob

¶15

Ali Khan, Occ: business, aged 49 yrs, Male, H.No.B 218, Silver springs, Venkateswara Nagar, euthbullapur, K.V. Ranga Reddy, TS - 500 055.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant
laoueeooaparrv
For the Defendants ,1ffi-%,
:i; o 1 1116 zrrr I
,,4 t: !r'. ' . -'""^ i+, ,1 --o ;::r;j \j
.$up19'

¶19

(OA.No.206 of 2023)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4S,l7.449.9gps (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seventeen thousand Four hundred forty nine and paise Ninety Eight only) i.e.,

¶22

a) A sum of Rs.40,13,154.58ps in respect of loan account No.448805010042026 with current and future interest @ 10.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

b) A sum of Rs.5,04,295.40ps in respect of loan account No.448806990000006 with current and future interest @ 11.75olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 represented by defendant no.2 as proprietor availed cash credit loan of Rs.3g.00 lakhs on mortgage of schedule property more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendant no.1 re defendant no.2 executed letter of confirmation d tg.1 ,a Rli(^{letter of guarantee.The} defendants depositad o 06.08.2019 vide document availed UGECL

¶26

(OA.No.206 of 2023)

¶27

loan of Rs.7,40,000/- on extension of deposit of tiue deeds vide document no.9907 /2020 dated L6.LZ.2O2O.

¶28

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 classified as NpA on 31.05.2021' Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the appricant bank issued demand notice dated 26.o7.zozt but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar claim of Appricant against defendants is of Rs.45,17,44g.ggps (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seventeen thousand Four hundred forty nine and paise Ninety Eight only) with current and future interest @ 10.50% p.a on Rs.40,13,154.58ps and a sum of Rs.5,04,295.40ps with current and future interest @ 11.75olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the OA.

¶29

2' The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It was agreed that defendants availed cash credit loan of Rs.38.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 02.0g.2019. The defendants agreed about the execution of the documents and creation of any mortgage with the Applicant Bank. It is further submitted that the^-/--"-1:'*-- c' surrr or KS./,ru,uuu/- on va r ous 0u,",,*ffi,*Ht:,il::: ,,.4,.rurqrs$ffi" i.:1,11.".,

¶30

bank declared the toanBqqgt ?frtoO1, ty is rurtner contended that '' 3 . ,':'i., -:_ 't Sq4-;.,-l': ' . " .l:. ','.'.-*''''.;

¶31

(OA.No.206 of 2023)

¶32

the applicant bank obtained signatures on blank printed formats. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶33

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) To what relief ?

¶37

Point No.i):

¶38

sri A. Lokesh, chief Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on beharf of the Applicant have crearry deposed the riabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.16 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶39

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though 2nd defendant examined himserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The 2nd defendant having taken the prea that the applicant bank did not foilow th-:3ffifuS"s and that the present oA was barred bv rimitaur'dn,i"r"o *'II$Ssubsrantiar proof to that effect. Moreoveri r-Aa perqsa] o,t i.n"_;,o.r1,qts executed by the ,ll

¶40

bank makes clear that ail the rerevant ooturnents are executed by ':'

¶41

¶42

(OA.No.206 of 2023)

¶43

the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The 2nd defendant very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant No.2 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entiUed to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶44

Point No.ii)

¶45

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

¶46

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.45,17,449.98ps (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seventeen thousand Four hundred forty nine and paise Ninety Eight only) i.e.,

¶47

a) A sum of Rs.40,13,154.58ps in respect of loan account No.448805010042026 with current and future interest @ 10.50o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization

¶48

b) in respect of loan account rrent and future interest @ till the date of realization;

¶49

(OA.No.206 of 2023)

¶50

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

¶51

9' The Applicant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of Aug, 2OZ4)

¶57

sdl-

¶58

(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
01['J$
h:tw:
e$I,"i,!, i'l i'''r' o'

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Yrk Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Yrk 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

Bank of India versus M/S. Dlk Bio Briquette

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Venkata Sai Foods

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Spyksz Spa

State Bank of India versus Smt. Kirthi Goel

Uco Bank versus Sri Macharla Naresh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Balaji Trading Company