Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Bhaskara Enterprises

DRT21 Mar 2024OA/215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery. The court found the documents established defendant liability regarding an NPA loan secured by title deeds. The bank was granted a total sum with interest and rights over the mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability ordered for principal and interest; right granted to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties of the borrower.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Bhaskara Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 21sr DAy OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.215 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Nalgonda branch, R.P. Road, Near Clock towers, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda - 508 001. Represented by its authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Bhaskara Enterprises, Represented by its proprietor VeerlapatiYadagiri, S/o Kondaiah, Office at 6-L-LZ/F, Ramagiri, Nalgonda - 508 001.

¶10

Mr.RamagiriBhaskar, s/o Yadagiri, aged about 65 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.5-7-86,

¶11

Manyamchalak, Nalgonda - 508 001.

¶12

Mr.VeerlapatiYadagiri,
s/o Kondaiah, aged about 70 years,
occ: business, R/o H.No.6-6-2t5,
Ravindranagar, Gouthami
Defendants
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant : Sri V. r Madhava Rao
2 1.l,lAB ZpD.
For the Defendants No.1 avulu
'-.1 .C( 'Y
W;;;;ri#

¶13

(OA.No.215 of 2022)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.52,22,911/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Twenty Two thousand Nine hundred and Eleven only) with subsequent interest @ 13.15olo p.a with monthly 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.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is the borrower, defendant no.2 is mortgagor and defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors availed credit facilities of Rs.40.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 28.08.20t7. The defendants executed the following documents on 28,08.20t7. a) Demand Promissory Note promising to repay Rs.40.00 lakhs.

¶17

b) Letter of continuity

¶18

c) Composite Agreement of Rs.40.00 lakhs

¶19

d) Partnership letter duly signed by defendants.

¶20

To secure due repayment to the Applicant Bank, the defendant no.1 deposited the title of schedule mentioned property on 23.08.2017 i.e., Regd Sale Deed No.3393/2090 dated 13.08.1990 and confirmed the same vide memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 23.08.2017.

¶21

bank that the Defendants rt is submtt.y{@yS iled to keep up the have availed t" ff* toan Sitity repayment schedu ,*as 2uqn#f i6ff"rt as classified as NPA.

¶22

(OA.No.21s of 2022)

¶23

Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued demand notice, possession notice and sale notice, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isRs.52,22,911/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Twenty Two thousand Nine hundred and EIeven only) with subsequent interest @ 13.15o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments stated in the OA. It is contended that the Applicant bank invoked SARFAESI measures, hence the defendant no.1 filed SA.No.261 of 2019 challenging the E-auction Sale notice before this Tribunal, and obtained conditional stay orders subject to deposit of 20olo of the outstanding dues. But due to financial problems could not mobilize the funds within time. Thereafter the respondent bank proceeded further and issued sale notice again on 16.01.2020 fixing the auction on 04.02.2020 against the schedule property. Challenging the same, defendant no.1 filed WP. No.2223/2020 and obtained stay order dated 03.02.2021 and paid Rs.2.00 lakhs to the credit of loan account. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶25

The m, filed evidence affidavit duly ager as AW.1 and through

¶26

(OA.No.215 of 2022)

¶27

him marked 10 documents as Ex.A.l to A.10. Defendant no.3 examined himself as DW.3 but no documents produced by him.

¶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

AW.1 who was examined on beharf of the Appricant have crearry deposed the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A,1 to A.10 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly estabtish the tiability of the defendants,

¶34

AW.l was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant no.3 examined himserf as DW.3, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant No.3 having taken the prea that the applicant bank capitalized the interest payable by defendants failed to place any substantial p effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents ex the makes clear that all the releva nt documentd' are exec dr& bvt ndants in the normal course of tra nsa ry vaguely contended

¶35

(OA.No.215 of 2022)

¶36

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 defendants is not tenabre. Hence the Applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

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

¶39

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.52,22,9L1l- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Twenty Two thousand Nine hundred and Eleven only) with subsequent interest @ 13.15olo p.a from date of applicationtill realization.

¶40

ii) The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA.

¶41

iii) the Applicant Bank is also against the person and properties 3 and properties of defendant no.1 the debt due.

¶42

(OA.No.215 of 20221

¶43

iv) The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the oA.

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of March, 2OZ4)

¶48

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

': '!i ;.jii

¶50

.--6-t a? .Yt
Assf.,eeryGtiar
D ;:: T- l, f.i iBi: r+.il iiL O.

¶51

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Bhaskara Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Bhaskara Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Smr Tours and Travels

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vedha Marketing

Union Bank of India versus Smt Machineni Sujatha

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Laxmi Prasanna Trading

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Building Constructions

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohd Abdul Razzak Quadri