Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Burra Uday Bhaskar

DRT16 Dec 2024OA/291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Originated Application filed by Union Bank of India against Mr. Burra UdayBhaskar for recovery of ₹29,78,580.14 along with future interest on two loan accounts, confirming the bank's claim after the defendant failed to appear or file a written statement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹29,78,580.14 with future interest from two accounts; permission to sell mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Burra Uday Bhaskar — Arbitration | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.291 ol 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, D.No.21-1-978 to 982, P.B. No.616, Rikabganj, High Court, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 002. Represented by its Br. Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Burra UdayBhaskar, S/o Burra Annapurna Shastri, Aged 53 years, occ: business, Male, R/o H.No. 121-1-291/pR-504, Flat no.504, 5th floor, prakash Residency, Road no.3, Anandnagar Colony, Bandlaguda, Uppal, Medchal - Malkajgiri, TS - 5OO 068.

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

For the

¶12

Sri D.S. Pavan Kumar Expa rte

¶13

ORDER E 0ic^2tJ2{ the present OA against Defendant for ' Rs.29,78,58O.14ps (Rupees Twenty

¶14

Nine Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Five hundred Eighty and paise fourteen only) i.e.,

¶15

(OA.No.291 of 2024)

¶16

a) A sum of Rs.Lg,92,2O2.37ps in respect of loan account no.347606650091145 with current and future interest @ 11.65% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of reallzation;

¶17

b) A sum of Rs.9,86,377 .77ps in respect of loan account no.347604t20000002 with current and future interest @ 11.55o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of rea lization ;

¶18

And in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant avaired roan of Rs.20.00 rakhs under '.Union Home Scheme" on 01.01.2016. The defendant executed Housing loan agreement, letter of continuity and demand promissory note for Rs.20.00 lakhs. The loan facility was secured by collateral security of schedure mentioned property and the defendant deposited the sale deed no.t07/20t6 dated 04.01.2016 registered at SRO, LB nagar in favour of Appricant Bank. After avairing the roan facirity, failed to compty rhe terms of sanction, hence rhe 78\ ffi"O0fep+B5f, & aOpifant bfi',was constrained to classify the account as NpA on . ii 4^{27l\f .AP[4} #ai issueO demand notice dated 03.05.2024. Inspite of several .requpsts and demands, the defendant did not clear the ; Hence this OA.

¶20

(OA.No.291 of 2024)

¶21

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 09.09.2024.

¶22

Sri P. Rajesh, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.22.

¶23

E Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the oA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶25

Even though Defendant appeared through his counser faired to fire written statement. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW'1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.22. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶26

B. In the result, the pre9ent OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶27

ant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of 4ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Seventy Eight

¶28

sand Fivq undred Eighty and paisefourteen only) i.e.,

¶29

1 6^{oEC 202[}

¶30

(oA.N0.291 of 2024)

¶31

a) A sum of Rs.19,92,202.37ps in respect of loan account no.347606650091145 with current and future interest @ 11.65% p.a from date of fiting of OA tiil the date of realization;

¶32

b) A sum of Rs.9,g6,377.77ps in respect of loan account no.347604L20000002 with current and future interest @ 11.55% p.a from date of filing of OA til the date of realization;

¶33

9 The Appricant bank is entiued to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶34

10' The Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards rearization of the debt due.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

of receipt of order.

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly. 14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

coufr).r+,TTn'!*S[d (Dictated to the p.A., transcribed ay of Dec, bitu.r, ZO24) .orr".tud, srgned and pronounced by me in the open

¶40

d.
ty
1 E oEC 2C2t

¶41

sd/-
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
OE/trOP,n -
s\ff.
-..1:"f;r,"1;?la'",,.

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Burra Uday Bhaskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Burra Uday Bhaskar

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

Union Bank of India versus ramakoteswara rao

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kashyap

State Bank of India versus gandhi

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Muggu Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus Radhika