Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Avanthi Agro Agencies

DRT18 Dec 2024OA/241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank to recover ₹82.30 lakhs from borrowers and guarantors who failed to repay an OLCC loan. The court directed joint and several liability, interest, and rights to proceed against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly liable to pay ₹82,30,549 with future interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and persons of defendants 2-4; Recovery certificate issued.

City Union Bank Limited versus Avanthi Agro Agencies — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.241 ol 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

City Union Bank Ltd, 4-3-75/2, Hameedpura, Near Nethajichowk, Opp to Big Bazaar, Adilabad - 504 001. TS. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Avanthi Agro Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri GandrathJeevan, 3-L-277 /E/ t/7, Gunj road,

¶8

Adilabad, Telangana - 504 001.

¶9

Sri GandrathJeevan, S/o RamkishtuGandrath, Aged 46 years, male, No. 3- 13, KapparlaTamsi, Adilabad - 504 001.

¶10

3, SmtGandrathLatha, w/o GandrathJeevan, aged 43 years, female, No.3-13, KapparlaTamsi, Adilabad - 504 001.

¶11

Sri MugaSubhash, s/o NarsimluMuga, aged 54 years, male, No.2-5-54, Brahmanwada, Ashok road, Adilabad Telangana - 504 001.

¶12

:1 [ oEC zmt
Defendants

¶13

(oA. No.24112024)

¶14

Counsel for the Pa rties: For the Applicant Sri C, Prabhakar For the Defendants Exparte

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.82,30,549l- (Rupees Eighty Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Forty nine only) i.e.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.72,34,504/- from defendants 1 to 4 with further interest @ 12.500/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶18

b)A sum of Rs.9,96,045/- from defendants 1 to 4 with further interest @ 9.25olo^p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶19

and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule "I & II " to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendants No.1 to 4 availed OLCC loan of Rs.80.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 09.04.2018. Defendant no.2 being proprietor of Defendant agreement of loan cum hypothecation no.4 executed guarantee agreement the due repayment of OLCC loan,

¶21

1 0 0E[ im ;1!

¶22

defendant no.'1^-created primai/ charge by way of hypothecation of

¶23

(oA. No.24112024)

¶24

all its stocks and book^{debts more fully described in OA schedule-I.} Defendant no.4 created equitable^{mortgage on 04'04.2018by way of} deposit of sale deed no.1590/2011 dated^{23.03.2011in respect of} schedule property -II. After availing the loan facilities,^the defendants failed to comply the^terms of^{sanction, hence the} applicant bank was constrained^{to classify the accountas NPAand} issued demand notice dated 26.10.2023.^{Inspite of several requests} and demands, the defendants did^{not clearthe outstanding.Hence}

¶25

this OA.

¶26

Defendants called absent^{and set exparte on 20.11.2024.}

¶27

Sri P. Sai Kumar, Chief^{Manager of the Applicant Bank examined} himself as AW.1 and exhibited^{relevant documents,which are} marked as Ex.A.1 to^A.19.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank.}

¶29

6, The^point that arise^{for consideration is whetherthe ApplicantBank is} entitled for the claim^{made in} the^{OA against the Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶30

exparte. To substantiate^{the case of the} ApplicarTt..pank, ,^{official of the Applicant Bank was examined} nt documents as Ex.A1 to A.19.^{In view of} and,,,rrg g,.$iffid the, above, the Applicant Bank has^{established their claim}

¶31

lo^{A.No.241./2024].}

¶32

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:} The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^{pay to the} Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.82,30,5491'^{(Rupees Eighty} Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Five^{Hundred and Forty nine} only) i.e.,

¶34

a) A sum of Rs.72,34,504/- from^{defendants 1to 4 with further} interest @ 12.50o/o^p.a from date of^{applicationtill the date of} realization;

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.9,96,0451-^{from defendantsIto 4 with further} interest @ 9.25o/o^p.a from^date of^{applicationtill the date of} realizatlon;

¶36

The Applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the hypothecated schedule "I & II" to OA

¶37

and mortgaged^{properties as described in} towards realization^{of the debtdue.}

¶38

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainstthe person} of defendants No.2 to 4^{and propertiesof defendant} of the debt due.

¶39

':11. lTBelhEilflbnt s"ani< is entitled to the costs of the oA' {-,'.

¶40

¶41

(oA. No.241 /2024)

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of Dec,2024)

sdl - (G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

.; , .!,, 10oE$frH

w%
'^;".ffi,

City Union Bank Limited v. Avanthi Agro Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Avanthi Agro Agencies

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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Muggu Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus Radhika

M/S . Uco Bank versus M/S. Vanitha Jyothi Mahila Sangam

Indian Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Enterprises

Mrs D Umadevi versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Sugyam Vittal