Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vinodini Filling Station

DRT7 Aug 2024OA/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the originail application (OA) filed by Union Bank of India against five respondents. The bank recovered a principal sum of over Rs.76 lakh along with future interest and costs against the defaulter and guarantors.

What did the court decide?

The order allowed the OA, directing defendants to pay Rs.76,20,172 with interest and empowering the bank to realize the debt from movable/mortgaged properties and the assets of the defendant firm.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vinodini Filling Station — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.31 ol 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, (E-Andhra Bank) Huzurnagar branch, Suryapet district, TS Represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Vinodini Filling Station, Proprietor Mrs Udayashree Kolker, Major, female, W/o Raviraj Kolkar, Miryalaguda road, Huzur nagar, Suryapet dist - 508 204.

¶9

Mrs Udayshree Kolkar, W/o Raviraj Kolkar, aged major, 7 -70- 7 /2A, flat no. 303, Street no.5, Ashok nagar, Sai Soudha apartments, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 20.

¶10

Sri Pottumuttu Dayanand, # l-42/3/ 7, Chaitanya colony, Huzurnagar town, Huzur Nagar mandal, Suryapet District - 508 204.

¶11

Sri pottumuttu Viswakanth, s/o Pottumuttu dayanand, # l-42/ 3 / t, Chaitanya colony, Huzurnagar town, Huzur Nagar mandal, Suryapet District - 508 204.

¶12

(oA.No.31/202a)

¶13

Mrs Pottumutta Somalakshmi, W/o Dayanand, #t-4213/t, Chaitanya colony, H uzu rnaga r town, Huzur Nagar mandal, Suryapet District - 508 204.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶16

Sri Srinivas Rao chakrala Exparte

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1' The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.76,2O,L72l_ (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Twenty thousand One hundred and Seventy two only)

¶19

i.e., a sum of Rs.61,71,977.87ps with future interest @ 10olo p.a and a sum of Rs.14,48,194.14ps with future interest @ 10.95olo p.a with monthry rests from 0g.12.2023 ti, the date of rearization and rn default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule^,.I & II,, to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.l is a Proprietary concern, represented by sole proprietrix defendan dants 3 to 5 are guarantors to 'r'ffii,r'? the loan avai 2. The defendants 1 and 2 e! availed SOD o capital with security of 5^{"['?'frff',fiii} hypothecation 1$o..1..,^{and witha} I security of residential

¶21

(oA.No.31/2024)

¶22

plot more fully described in schedule to OA. The defendants also availed Rs.6.80 lakhs under MSME and executed term loan agreement, supplementary deed to SD-20, interest agreement and letter of guarantee etc. 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 30.03.2022 and issued notices. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶23

? Counsel for Defendants No.1 to 5 called absent and set exparte on ts.07.2024.

¶24

Sri K. Pradeep Babu, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.28.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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

¶27

entitled for the claim made i against the Defendants as
prayed for?
....,r" 'k4<br>)k
7. Defendants called i-enotJ Alp"rot ntiate the case
of the Applicant Bank, Applicant Bank was

¶28

(oA.No.31/202a)

¶29

examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.2g. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶30

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

¶31

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.76,20,172/_ (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Twenty thousand One hundred and Seventy two only) i.e., a sum of Rs.61,71,977.87ps with future interest @ 1O% p.a and a sum of Rs.14,4g,194.14ps with future interest @ 10.95% p.a from 09.12.2023 till the date of realization;

¶32

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as described in schedules^,.I to II" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

The Applicant Ba to proceed against the person

¶34

and properties of 5 and properties of defendant

¶35

no.1 firm towards due.

¶36

,,5qG

¶37

The Applicant Bank is f.#;&.Ji oA.

¶38

j orAUczoz{ : '4^, ^s W,utW

¶39

(oA.No.31/2024)

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of Aug,2024)

¶44

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

v >;)5{xtt dvqw lsst, R.g,tttar DP7.',^HYDFRABAD'

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vinodini Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vinodini Filling Station

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

State Bank of India versus Sri. Narsimhulu Muggu

State Bank of India versus Smt. Usha Sree

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S. Ravus Farm Fresh Dairy Milk

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Pemmada Aneesh

Smt Ca Suvarna Kumari versus Canara Bank

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/.S. Sri Anjaneya Family Restaurant