Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lmr Constructions

DRT28 Nov 2024OA/290/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a debt of Rs. 2.03 crores. The court found the defendants liable to pay the principal amount with future interest and granted the bank a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2.03 crores with future interest at 13.65% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.29O of ZOZ}

¶4

Between:

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. LMR Constructions, Partnership firm, situated at H.No. 19-7-37, Sastry road, New^palvancha _ SO7 115. BhadradriKothag udem district, Telangana State.

¶9

Represented by its Managing Partner Mr. Gaddam Ramakrishna Reddy & Mr. GaddamMadhusudhan Reddy, Executive partner

¶10

Sri Gaddam Ramakrishna Reddy, s/o Mr. Madhusudhan Reddy, aged 43 years, occ: business, R/o H. No. 1 g-l-37 , Sastry road, New Palvancha - 507 115. BhadradriKothag udem district, Telangana State.

¶11

Mr. GaddamMadhusudhan Reddy, S/o Mr. Ramakrishan Reddy, lg.O^{B1 years, occ: business,} R/o H.No.1g-l-37, Sastry ,oud, New Palvancha - 507 115. BhadradriKothag udem district, Telangana State.

¶12

*,.
2 r il0l, 2llz{ ,,'.- ,

¶13

lo^A.29o120231

¶14

Mrs. PakanatiMadhavi, w/o Rajeshwar Reddy, major, occ: housewife, R/o 11_2_10g, BCM road, Gandhinagar, Palvancha,^post office road, Palvancha, Bhadradri, Kothagudemdist, Palvancha- 507 11S.

¶15

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶16

Defendants : Sri MVS^prasad Exparte

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,03,36,496l_ (Rupees Two Crores Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Sixonly) with future interest @ 13.650lo p.a from date of filing of oA ti' the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No'1 is a partnership firm represented by defendants 2 & 3 as its partners and mortgagors/ personal guarantors and defendant no.4 is the personal guarantor to the loan availed by defendant no.1. The presented by defendants 2 & 3 avaited working _frfuai res and Inland Bank guarantee of Rs. composite agreement, il1u wt

¶20

¶21

(oA.2e012023)

¶22

demand promissory note for Rs.3.00 crores. Defendants 2 & 3 offered personal properties i.€., oA schedule properties towards security for repayment of above loans and created equitable mortgage and deposited the tiile deeds of rerevant properties. Defendant no.4 executed generar form of guarantee dated 05'06'20L5' 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 on L4.06.2023 and issued demand notice dated 20.06.2023. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶23

Defendants No.1 to 4 called absent and set exparte on 22.04.2024.

¶24

Sri K.N. Srikanth, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.25.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is is entitled for the claim m AS prayed for?

¶27

(oA.29O/2023)

¶28

7' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.25. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entired to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶29

B' In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under; The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,O3,36,496l_ (Rupees Two Crores Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Sixonly) with future interest @ 13.650lo p.a from date oF filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶30

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards rea li due.

¶32

The Applicant cosfs the OA. : 2sllol,zmt

¶33

(oA.290/20231

¶34

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶35

of receipt of order.

¶36

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of Nov, 2024)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ffiqe
f/8\ " ffi
.sF, - eb6.4
, ,I I ll0ll )wt

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lmr Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lmr Constructions

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Spring Bee Diary Products Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/s. Natural Fruit Juice Processor

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Shruthi Machine Cutting Works

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Big Bansal Gold

State Bank of India versus Sri Tumuluri Ravindra

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sri Baba Karthik Kalapatapu