Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt Machineni Sujatha

DRT18 Mar 2024OA/294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India against multiple defendants for recovery of principal, interest, and costs of Rs. 49.87 lakhs and affirmed their liability for mortgage properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 49.87 lakhs plus interest; Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged movables; Recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Smt Machineni Sujatha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

PIN^{THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.294 of 2022

¶3

Between :

¶4

Union Bank of India, (E- Andhra Bank), Huzurabad branch, H.No.20-558, Gandhinagar road, Huzurabad, Karimnagar dist- 505 468. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

SmtMachineni Sujatha, s/o Sampath Rao, aged 50 years, occ: housewife, R/o H.No.2-2-534/ L, Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal district.

¶8

Mr. MachineniSampath Rao, Aged major, occ: business, R/o H.No.2-2 -s34/1, Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal district.

¶9

SmtErabelly Manga, w/o Ravinder Rao, aged 46 years, occ: business, H.No.2-6-1168/4, srinivasa colony, Huzurabad, Karimnagar dist- 505 468.

¶10

Smt. KallepuVinoda,
w/o Mohan Rao, aged 7l years,
occ: business, H.No.20-502,
rd"
vidyanagar, huzurabad,
Karimnagar dist - 505 468. IP
5. SmtAireddyHemalatha, 4t'rJ. 1'rororzfl, d1 AJI,
Q;*rr#

¶11

loA.294^{ot 2022)}

¶12

w/o Bhaskar Reddy, aged 67 years, occ: business, H.No.12-169, oppNataraj theatre, Huzurabad, Karimnagar dist - 505 468.

¶13

SmtVardhineniLaxmi, w/o Ravinder Rao, aged 52 years, occ : business, H.No.l2-287 / I / 5, Kakatiya colony, Huzurabad, Karimnagar dist -505 468.

¶14

SmtPa llepatiJyoth i, w/o Balakrishna Rao, aged 47 years, occ: business, H.No.1-8-496/B/5, Aparajitha enclave, Balasamudram, Warangal dist -506 001.

¶15

B. SmtJapaBhagyamma, w/o VenkataRamana Reddy, aged 69 years, occ: business, H.No.1-58, Alugunur, Timmapurmandal,

¶16

Karimnagar district.

¶17

Smt Chandra Pushpaleela, w/o Rajaiah, aged 66 years, occ: business, R/o flat no.403, 3'o floor, Kakatiya towers, Vidyaranyapuri, Warangal District - 506 009.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Parties:

¶20

For the Applicant

¶21

For the Defendant No.1 to S & 7

Defendant no.6,8,9

Sri V. Sethu Madhava

Sri N. Sekhar Rao

Expa rte

{% 1. The Appl i, ,1.{. $fi807ffi{" nt OA against Defendants for recovery 9,87,976.46ps (Rupees Forty W,*-*9

¶27

(oA.29a of 2ozzl

¶28

Nine Lakhs Eighty Seven thousand Nine hundred Seventy six and paise forty six only) with subsequent interest @ 10.75olo p.a with monthly rests + 2o/o p.a penal interest from 29.08.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movablesand mortgaged properties as described in the schedules^..A & B" to OA.

¶29

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendant no.2 to 9 are co_ obligants. Defendants 1,3 to 9 are the mortgagors. The defendants availed term loan of Rs.1.25 crores vide sanction letter dated 29.023.2012 and executed composite agreement and guarantee deed was executed by defendants 2 to 9. Defendants 3 to 9 with an intent to secure the repayment to Applicant bank deposited the titles relating to the schedure properties on 28,03.2012. the defendants 3 to 9 confirmed the creation of mortgage vide memorandum of deposit of tifle dated 29.03.20t2 and the same was registered as deed no. 668/20L2, 669/20t2, 670/20t2, 67t/20t2, 676/20L2, 677/2012, 678/20t2 and RF 255 dated 29.03.2012 in SRO, Bheemadeva r availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed f6m$ffitY$ts-\ranction,^{hencethe appticant bankwas} co */ft0 to .t#iry tn"$c\unt as NpA on 31.03.2015 and issued dem not1.8 li6t"3ntr.o#Irr. rnspite of severat requesrs and

¶30

(oA.294 of 20221

¶31

demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶32

Shri N. sekharrao fired vakarathfor defendants No.1 to 5 & 7 but failed to file written statement. Defendants no.6,g & 9 cailed absent and set exparte.

¶33

sri Nishant^prasad, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.23.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

prayed for?

¶38

Counsel for defendants No.1 to 5 & 7 filed vakalath but not filed WS. Defendant no.6,g & g cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he documents as Ex.A1 to

¶39

4.23. In view of e Applicant Bank has

¶40

established their cl the Defendants and

,+,

pA.29a ot 20221

hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶45

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

¶46

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.49,87,976.46ps (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Eighty Seven thousand Nine hundred Seventy six and paise forty sixonly) withsubsequent interest @ 10.75% p.afrom 29.08.2022ti11 the date of realization;

¶47

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as described in schedules "A & B" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open 2024) * sdlI (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER l RUE COPY

¶54

Issr. Reorslrrr
DRI.I, HYDERABAD,

Union Bank of India v. Smt Machineni Sujatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt Machineni Sujatha

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri Sai Pharma Distributors

Indian Bank versus Ms Be rollex Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mahamood

Uco Bank versus Mr. Somagani Varaprasad

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vedha Marketing

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Smr Tours and Travels