Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Neeraja Constructions

DRT19 Jun 2024OA/31/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 1.22 Cr against four defendants. The Tribunal held that the bank successfully established the loan default and granted the claim for principal, interest, and enforcement against mortgaged and defendant properties.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability for payment of Rs. 1,22,33,517/- with future interest; authority to proceed against mortgaged and respondent properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Neeraja Constructions — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.31 ol 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Hanamakonda branch, Warangal, TS Represented by its chief Manager And Principal officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Neeraja Constructions, Prop : SmtTadisettyNeeraja Wo Shri T. Vidyasagar, aged 52 years, R/ o 4-4-192, KothurJanda, Hanamakonda - 506 001 Warangal district.

¶10

SmtTadisettyNeeraja,

¶11

Prop: M/s. Neeraja Constructions, W/o Shri T. Vidyasagar, aged 52 years, R/ o 4-4- L92, KothurJanda, Hanamakonda - 506 OO1

¶12

Warangal district.

¶13

Sri TadisettyVidyasa ga r, s/o Rama Swamy, aged 59 years, R/ o 4-4- 192, KothurJanda, Hanamakonda - 506 001 Warangal district.

¶14

Sri P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, s/o Sri P. Raghava Reddy aged 68 years, male, R/o TNGO colony, Hanamakonda.

¶15

lgJUllmf

¶16

(oA. No.31/202 3)

¶17

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri P. Balaji For the Defendants Exparte

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,22,33,517l- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lakhs Thirty three thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen only) (Rs.1,03,79,07L/- under secured overdraft and a sum of Rs.18,54,446l- under term loan) with future interest @ 13.200/o p.a with monthry rests from the date of apprication tiil the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

2, As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 company represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed SOD limit which was enhanced and renewed for Rs.90.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 2g.05.2019. Defendants3&4stood as guarantors and guaranteed the repayment of the said loan. The secured OD facility was secured by hypothecation of book debts and mortgage of schedule mentioned property. Defendant no.2 age by deposit of tiUe deeds on 18.10.2017 which nt no.12103 of 2017. /+ The defendants prom note, composite loan

¶21

(OA.No.31/2023)

¶22

agreement, guarantee deed and memorandum of extension of mortgage dated 31.07.2019. The defendants also availed UGECL term loan of Rs.18.00 lakhs and executed necessary documents. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 05.tt.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants No.1 to 4 cailed absent and set exparte on 14.08.2023.

¶24

MrsMinatiBhoi, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Appricant Bank is entitled for the craim made in the oA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exnipflrqEdtdfir, ents as Ex.A1 to A.14. In i -;'. view of the above,_d hold that,;t'l{e t Bank has established their claim made in the OA tgal4st.tle Defendants and hence the

¶28

¶29

(oA.No.31l2023)

¶30

Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶31

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

¶32

The Defendants No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,22,3g,5L7/_ (Rupees One crore Twenty Two Lakhs Thirty three thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen only) (Rs.1,03,7g,07t/_ under secured overdraft and a sum of Rs.18,54,446/_ under term loan) with future interest @ 13'200/o p.a from the date of apprication ti, the date of rearization;

¶33

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶34

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶35

debt due.

¶36

11' The Appricant Bank is arso entiiled to proceecr against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

in two weeks from the date of receipt of or{er, lt]t{ 20zt

¶39

(oA.No.31l2023)

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of June, 2024)

¶43

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFlCER

¶44

1'd. - *
h' di$
:1sJitr{zu{ *
fn
([i.,.,"**9
sfii;ri"g

¶45

;ffi^
ont L nvo6naaac.

Union Bank of India v. M/S Neeraja Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Neeraja 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

Sri Shiva Sai Industries versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. N.S. Vaishno Devi Developers India Private Limited.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Ram Constructions

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Pooja Samagri

Bank of India versus M/S. Svs Upvc Windows and Doors

State Bank of India versus Sri Myana Bhanu Vijayanand