Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Ketha Purna Venkata Prasad

DRT26 Nov 2024OA/214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowance of Original Application for recovery of secured dues by Union Bank of India from a defaulting borrower. The Tribunal found the claim established on evidence and granted recovery of principal, future interest, and rights over mortgaged/hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed with costs. Defendant to pay Rs.48,71,307/- plus future interest at 10.20% p.a. Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and hypothecated movables. Recovery certificate i

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ketha Purna Venkata Prasad — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2L4 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Khammam branch, Khammam bus station complex, Khammam, TS - 507 002. Represented by its Sr. Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Ketha Purna Venkata Prasad, s/o K. Ramachandra Rao, agerd 60 yearss, occ: business, R/o flat no.204, plot no.76, Vishnu Pearly Apartment, Kavuri hills, Opp Madhapur Police Station, Hyderabad - 33.

¶9

And also at

¶10

H.No. 15-15-9, Sahakara nagar, Khammam - 507 003.

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

Sri MVS Exparte ?⁶ ilot, zmt present OA aga i

¶15

For the Defendant

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA

¶18

recovery of a total sum of Rs.48,7L,3O7 /- (Rupees Forty Eight

¶19

(OA. No.214 of 2024)

¶20

Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Three hundred and Seven only) with future interest @ 10.20% p.a from <iate of application till the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property and hypothecated stocks as described jn the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant avaired cash credit of Rs.50.00 rakhs on 2L.rL.2oz2 and mortgaged the schedule mentioned property. The defendant deposited the tifle deeds bearing No.63l8/2022 dated 2L.tt.ZOZ2. The defendant executed term roan agreement, hypothecation, retter of guarantee and interest agreement dated 21. rr,2022. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendant fairecr to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 2g.03.2024 and issued demand notice dated 30.03.2024. Inspite of several requcsts and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. ucnce this OA.

¶22

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 05.1 t.202.4.

¶23

Sri B. Ashok, Manager of the Applicant Uank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1

¶24

Heard ;:i:".",.,"ffiHm_, J^{r!6lorlx?l ;i,} %u* e@-11ui "

¶25

(oA.No.214 of 2024)

¶26

The^point that arise for consideration^{is whetherthe Applicant Bank is} entitled for the claim madeⁱⁿ the^{OA against the Defendantas} prayed for?

¶27

Defendant remained exparte. To^{substantiate the case of the} Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the^{Applicant Bank was examined} and he exhibited relevant documents^{as Ex.A1 to A.12. In view of} the above, I hold that the Applicant^{Bank has established their claim} made in the OA against the Defendant and^{ilence the ApplicantBank} is entitled to recover the claim rnade in thc OA with^{futureinterest} and costs.

¶28

In the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.48,7t,3O7 /- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Three hundred and Seven only) with future interest @ tO.20o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realisation.

¶29

The Applicant bank is entitled to^procecd against^{the mortgaged} property and hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

The Applicant ceed against the^person and^properties :::m ion of the debt due. 2⁶ ilot'm :ll .j ' *r#

¶31

(OA.No.214 of 2024)

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrcctcd, siqncd a,rd pronouncod by me in the open court on this the 26th day of Nov, 2024)

¶37

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

IFUF coPY .
4tl
/(, I/L--.- /---),
/'^i{i:;,li*'f;Juovt"
rm.n#

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Ketha Purna Venkata Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Ketha Purna Venkata Prasad

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Karigar Home Comforts

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gumbarthi Jaya Babu

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Nelapati Hemalatha

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Maryada Vinutha Devi

M/S. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation versus M/S. Vaishnavi Sales Corporation

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. the Pegadapally Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society Ltd.