Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Laxmipriya Cotex

DRT6 May 2024OA/282/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's claim for recovery against the respondents. The Bank proved loan availed and subsequent default via documentary evidence, which remained unchallenged as the defendants failed to file or cross-examine evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are liable to pay the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,44,83,184/- with interest @ 10.30% from the date of OA till realization, with rights to enforce against mortgaged properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmipriya Cotex — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6rH DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.282 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Palvancha branch, Palvancha, Bhadradri, Kothagudem district, TS. Represented by its Chief manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri LaxmipriyaCotex, Situated at Sy.No.B0/A, 80/ A/ 7, B0 / AA/ 2,5L / L,87 / 4, Karepally, Singareni G.P & Revenue village Singareni village and mandal, Khammam district, Represented by its sole Proprietrix Mrs.Sunkara Madhavi, W/o Sunkara Rama Koteswara Rao,

¶10

Mrs.SunkaraMadhavi,
Female, W/o Mr. Ramakoteswara
Rao, aged about 49 years,
Occ: business, R/o 20-5-124,
ffiilH"?::';,5li,i'.,i,i'.i;, Z"e eG.
Bhadradrikothagudemdist "U<br>Telangana state - 507 115. fi ; Pg
3. Mr. SunkaraRamakoteswara nao, {:;i , I E 1;1i ilil .:. jl,i
Male, S/o S. Ramulu, aged 52 yrs,l .= " .. ^.; i:
Occ: business, R/o R/o 20-5-724, '.i ,r*"- - .:,:. .j-','
Contractorscolony,Palvancha,'i1...1,.'. .-.<.-1-.i-',..
Bhadradrikothagudemdist ti.,',.rr..,..'.,.,",'i./.r'
Telangana state - 507 115. ':*:l :..-.- ,4fefendants

¶11

(OA.No.282 of 2022 )

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶14

Sri MVS Prasad Sri D. Raghavulu

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.5,44,83,184/-^(Rupees Five Crores Forty four lakhs Eighty three thousand One hundred and Eighty four only) with interest @ 10.30% with monthly rests^from date of OA till the date of realization and in default^{for saleof} mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant^Bank states that the defendant No.2 is sole^proprietrix of defendant^no.1 firm and defendant no.3 is husband of defendant^{no.2 who stoodas} guarantor to the loan availed. The defendants availedcash credit of Rs.3,10,00,000/- and term loan of Rs.5.00 crores on^{12.09.2017for} running the business. The defendants executed^{promissorynote,} composite agreement,^guarantee deed and mortgage^deed to^secure the repayment of loa defendant No.2 executed composite agree 2.09. for a total sum oF Rs.8,10,00,000/nk, General form of guarantee dated ndant no.3, demand

¶18

(OA.No.282 of 2022)

¶19

promissory note executed by defendant no.2 for a sum of Rs.3,10,00,000/-, Defendants no.2 & 3 executed memorandum of deposit of tifle deeds dated 14.09.20t7.

¶20

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpAon lB.04.2022.lnspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant has not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued demand notice dated t9.04.2022 but the defendant did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim oF Applicant against defendant isof Rs.5,44,83,184/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty four lakhs Eighty three thousand One hundred and Eighty four only) with interest @ 10.30o/o with monthly rests from date of OA till realization. Hence the OA.

¶21

2' The Defendants filed written statements and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents with the Applicant bank. The defendant denied the creation of mortgage over application schedule properties by deposit of title deeds. The defendants further denied the irregularities in the conduct of loan accounts and repayin nsta llments. Hence

¶22

prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶23

(OA.No.282 of 2022)

¶24

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri K.N. Srikanth, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 21 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.21. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on L0.04.2024.

¶25

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶26

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶27

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶28

ii) To what relief ?

¶29

Point No.i):

¶30

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the he amounts paid by the defenda nts are clearly me t of account filed by ii ,; - Applicant Bank. The defend ve not ced any material

¶31

(OA.No.282 of 2022)

¶32

documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶33

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not created the mortgage. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.21 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Appricant bank crearry estabrished that the defendant is liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶34

Point No.ii)

¶35

In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶36

B. The Defendantsare joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,44,g3,1g4/_ (Rupees Five Crores Forty four lakhs Eighty three thousand one hundred and Eighty four only) with interest @ 10.30% from date of OA tiI the date of realization ;

¶37

The applicant bank is en eed against the mortgaged properties as towards rea lization of the debt due. ';iY MqY Irw^*

¶38

(OA.No.282 of 2022)

¶39

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶44

(Oictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day ot May'2024)

¶45

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

-r*
t.\7- 6rJ
, lt'{, ,,'i,.{ \ .,rl'9...'i.l1':, .t': .
'),,-,. ,-'''l'i.""
'.,c:,.,: 1' ,
'''-'=:3'"'

¶47

.TRULCOPIf
0,.t h;ft{*
rnr-I, i;vaIlRl8, D.

¶48

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Laxmipriya Cotex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Laxmipriya Cotex

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

Mr Tenali Ajay Babu versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Mora Venkata Appa Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri Sonaganti Pavan Kumar

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gudala Girish

Sri Haridas Ramesh and Others versus State Bank of India

Sri Mohmmed Hamed Ali versus State Bank of India