Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sri Macharla Naresh

DRT2 Aug 2024OA/249/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹1,22,29,411.59 with interest and penal charges against borrowers and guarantors, ordering joint and several liability and a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay ₹1,22,29,411.59 plus interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties for realization; Recovery certificate issued.

Uco Bank versus Sri Macharla Naresh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2NDDAY OF AUGUST'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.249 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

UCO Bank, Malakpet branch, 16-02-7 05/ 28, Mumtaz college Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. Represented by its Chief Manager Cum Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri MacharlaNaresh, s/o Sri MacharlaMuthaiah, aged major, occ: business, Plot no.56, flat no.301, 3'd floor, SLR Enclave, Jyothi colony, Jagadishnagar colony, Rasoolpura, Hyderabad - 500 003.

¶10

Also at

¶11

H.No.(old H.No. 1-9-286 /z/4/ t/21 A) New H.No. 1-9-286/2/ A, t-9-286/2/4/ L/2/8, And 1-9-286/2/4/t/2/C, Ganesh nagar Colony, Ramnagar, Hyderabad - 5OO O2O.

Also at

(OA.No.249 of 2023)

Rasoolpura, Hyderabad - 5OO OO3.

¶16

Also at:

¶17

H.No.(old H.No. 1-9-286 /2/ 4/ L/2/ A) New H.No. 1-9 -286/2/ A, t-9-286/2/ 4/ t /21B., And 1-9-286/2/4/L/2/C, Ganesh nagar Colony, Ramnagar, Hyderabad - 5Ob O2O.

¶18

Also at

¶19

M/s. Ganesh Silks, H.No.3 -4-35/36, Shop no.6, building circle 15, Mahankali Temple,General bazar, Secunderabad - 500 003.

¶20

SmtMacharlaNagalakshmi, w/o Sri M. Naresh, aged major, oc,c: housewife, plot no.56, flat no.301, 3'" floor, SLR Enclave, Jyothi colony, Jagadishnagar colony, Rasoolpura, Hyderabad - 500 003.

¶21

SmtMacharla Uma, W/o Sri M. Santosh, aged major, Occ-: housewife, plot no.56, flat no.3O1,

¶22

-3'"^{floor, SLREnclave,Jyothicolony,} Jagadishnagar colony, Rasoolpura, Hyderabad - 5OO OO3.

¶23

Defendants

¶24

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

Smt K. Nandini alias

Smt A. Nandi

Defendants 1 & 2

For the Defendants 3 & 4

¶30

The Applicant Bank filed

¶31

Sri M. Sh /1 .4;, e"ou.,t itii- g^-Ail ,r-t u L ,'uu auft .^{ll;0 2 AUC 2r2r} : oRDER iii:: J, liI".l', ,9 ^3,'/ thepresent*Khm#

¶32

recovery of a total sum of Rs.L,22,2g,411.59ps (Rupees One

¶33

¶34

(oA.No.249 of 2023)

¶35

Crore Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Eight thousand Four Hundred Eleven and paise Fifty Nine only) with interest @ 9.650lo p.a with monthly rests and a penal interest @ 2olo p.afrom 01.08.2023 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendants No.1 and 2 availed term loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/under home loan scheme vide sanction letter dated 01.10.2019. Defendants 3 & 4 stood as guarantors and extended personal guarantee to the term loan availed by defendants No.1 & 2. The term loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- was secured by mortgage of residential property more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendants 1 and 2 mortgaged the immovable property by deposit of title deeds on 28.10.2019. The defendants 1 to 4 executed demand promissory note, letter of waiver, loan agreement, letter of guarantee etc. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued recall notice dated 31.07.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the

¶37

defendants did n nding. Hence this OA.
//*" "ffi
*e$
J- {-
02Attc7r7t :
;
,s. -'' - 3'.
&;xt'lW'

¶38

(oA.No.249 of 2023)

¶39

Counsel for Defendants No.1 and 2 filed vakalath but not filed Written statement. Defendants 3 & 4 called absent and set exparte

¶40

on L8.04.2024.

¶41

Smt KRR Rajya Lakshmi, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked.as Ex.A.1to A.17.

¶42

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶43

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶44

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶45

prayed for?

¶46

7 ' counser for Defendants No.1 and 2 fired vakarath but not fired Written statement. Defendants 3 & 4 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 rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.17. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiUed to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶47

B. In the result, the
costs, as under:
; ozrrlczrz{ :
W,ti-.*

¶48

(OA.No.249 of 2023)

¶49

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.l,22,Zg,41l.59ps (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Eight thousand Four Hundred Eleven and paise Fifty Nine only) with interest @ 9.650lo p.a from 01.08.2023 till the date of realization;

¶50

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶51

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶52

debt due.

¶53

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶54

and properties of defenda nts towards realization of the debt due.

¶55

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

¶56

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶57

of receipt of order.

¶58

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶60

,Zr^r* io to ttu'F.m :3,?,.":*,n,klffi :?r_B,X her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶61

sd/-
[; ozAUcmr :. (G. GOPTCHAND)
{. A.
' 'r 4 S,:'.'r,1 PRESIDING OFFICER
't.."i l"'' -.,'""4:ttli
'.,..t "'o'.,.p a,w
li):;inz';ra',,

¶62

li):;inz';ra',,

Uco Bank v. Sri Macharla Naresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sri Macharla Naresh

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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Yrk Industries

Bank of India versus M/S. Dlk Bio Briquette

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Venkata Sai Foods

State Bank of India versus Smt. Kirthi Goel

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

Indian Bank versus Sanghi Manoj Kumar