Allowed

Uco Bank v. Mr. Somagani Varaprasad

DRT18 Mar 2024OA/222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed UCO Bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 28,83,461.39 including future interest. The court held that the bank established its claim via examiners and documents, despite the defaulters being absent. The bank is entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly liable to pay Rs. 28,83,461.39 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables, firm properties, and recover costs.

Uco Bank versus Mr. Somagani Varaprasad — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER OA.No.222 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

UCO Bank,

¶6

Khammam branch (2457) D.No.2-3, 245 Sundar Talkies road, Gandhi chowk, Khammam - 507 003. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Somaganivaraprasad, S/o SomaganiLaxmaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: agriculturist, H.No. 1 1-144, Burugadda, HuzurnagarMandalam, Nalgonda district, TS - 5OB 204.

¶10

M/s. CGR Collateral Management Pvt Limited, (CGRCML) Represented by its directors, Office No.335, third ftoor, JMD Megapolis Sector 48, Sohna road, Gurugram, Haryana - t22 0t8.

¶11

Also at

¶12

26/40, third block, New DhanMandi, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan - 335 001.

¶13

401-402, fourth floor, J^lBilARma : K.J. City Tower, Ashok marg, C-scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302 001.

¶14

lOA.222^{of 20221}

¶15

And also at

¶16

First floor, Plot no.2, Swaroop colony, DCM Ajmer road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302 019.

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendant No.1 Defendant no.2

¶19

Sri P. S. Sujatha Sri G. Bhanu Murthy Exparte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants For recovery of a total sum of Rs.2g,93,461.39ps (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Three thousand four Hundred Sixty one and paise thirty nine only) with future interest @ g.05% p.a from 27.06'2022 ti| the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendant no.2 is a Company engaged in variou procurement services, storage and preserv #-'rg"q management services etc. The defenda lp.r avaffi Rs.zsl 00/- against pledge of agricultural prod schedule to OA. The as t&clto2r"tafr t[ %;,,,#

¶23

(oA.222 of 20221

¶24

defendant no.1 executed demand promissory note, letter of waiver and letter of authorization all dated 15.05.2019. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued demand notice dated 01.06.2020,20.01.2021, 16.04.2021 and 30.06.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶25

Shri G. Bhanu Murthy filed vakalathfor defendant No.1 but failed to file Written Statement. Defendant no.2 called absent and set expa rte.

¶26

sri varikooti Nagaraju, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim ma against the Defendants as

¶29

prayed for?

¶30

rB="u<br>;*
1 B ilAll 2[zl
,1"1 ?
it$. |
W,n#

¶31

(OA.222 of 20221

¶32

Counsel for defendant No.1 filed vakalath but not filed WS. Defendant no.2 called absent and set 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.19. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.28,83,461.39ps (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Three thousand four Hundred Sixty one and paise thirty nine only) with future interest @ 8.05o/o p.a from 2L.06.2}22till the date of realization;

¶35

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

the Applicant Bank is a against the person and properties of defenda ffi:m defendant no.2firm * 4d rrrn*. * towards realization of goeo1t,8.nn^am ;

¶37

W-,-t$l

¶38

(oA.222 of 20221

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcrib€d by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March,2O24)

¶44

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDlNG OFFICER

¶45

f_e<br>* l B ltAR ?rlzl :
Y,' ^ J'
RL,,,,.*f#fl
Q&;:fE

¶46

IRUE CORY
o,'? ',.g. f. 1);-,^

¶47

onr-t, nvo-enaa'ao_

Uco Bank v. Mr. Somagani Varaprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Mr. Somagani Varaprasad

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 Maharashtra versus Sri Sai Pharma Distributors

Indian Bank versus Ms Be rollex Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mahamood

Union Bank of India versus Smt Machineni Sujatha

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vedha Marketing

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