Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

DRT26 Sept 2024OA/329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by the Bank for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 90,31,030 along with future interest and costs from two respondents, finding that the bank established its claim.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 90,31,030 with future interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged and other properties for realization and to costs.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.329 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Narsampet branch,

¶7

Warangal, Telangana

¶8

Representned by its Br. Manager

¶9

Applicant No.1

¶10

Union Bank of India, Hanumakonda branch, Warangal, Telangana

¶11

Represented by its Br. Manager

¶12

Applicant No.2

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

Sri Jawaharlal Gogoluthu, s/o Ram Shankar, aged 34 years,

¶15

occ: bank employee, R/o H.No.1-14, mallaram village,^{palakurthymandal,} Jangaon District - 506 2Z2.TS.

¶16

SmtGugulothSravanthi,
W/o Jawaharlal Gogoluthu,
Aged major, occ: housewife,
R/o H.No. 1-B-388, Batasam
Near Ekasila park, Hanumako
ffiq
Warangal - 506 001. TS. V.J' 26SEP2p1 a nts
tf. \t
Counsel for the Parties: ."oo$
,%+^
For the Applicant
Rafiq

For the Defendants

(OA.No.329 of 2023 )

ORDER

(Amended vide memo filed on 24.09.2024)

¶21

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.9O,31,O3O/_ (Rupees Ninety Lakhs

¶22

Thirty One thousand and Thirty only ) a)A sum of Rs.49,90,L27/- from defendant no.1 under housing loan account No.039530100108150 with future interest @ gyo p'a with monthry rests arong with penar interest of additionar 2olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

b) A sum of Rs.6,73,736/- from defendant no.1 under housing loan Account No.039530100130292 with future interest @ Bolo p.a with monthry rests arong with penar interest of additionar 20/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

c) A sum of Rs.21,71,385/- from defendant no.l and 2 under Mortgage overdraft loan with future interest @ g% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest of addltional 2o/o p.d from date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

d) A sum of Rs.11,95,782/- from defendant no.1 and 2 under staff

¶26

overdraft loan with future inter .a with monthly rests

¶27

along with penal interest from date of application till the date and in default for sale in the

¶28

,frnrrr8dsff"J&{, "f i

¶29

'#, .,,

¶30

schedule to OA. Ke,W

¶31

(OA.No.329 of 2023)

¶32

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 avaired housing roan of Rs.43.00 rakhs on 09.04.2078 and executed composite agreement dated 13.07.2018. As security towards repayment of housing loan, the defendant no.1 mortgaged the immovabre property more fully described in the schedule to OA by depositing the original sale deed No.3gg4/201g dated 22.02.2018. The defendant no.1 availed renovation loan of Rs'6,40,000/- on 04.L2.2019 and executed composite agreement. Defendant no.2 who is co_applicant along with defendant no.1 availed mortgage OD limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 01.06.2021 and executed demand promissory note and housing loan agreement dated 07.06.202r. Again defendants avaired staff overdraft of Rs.11.00 lakhs on 08.06.2021. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 3L.L0.2022 and issued demand notice dated 19.06.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶33

Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 26.04.2024. 4. Sri Ch. Rajasekhar, Ma nk examined himself as AW.1 and ich are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.18. ;^26sEPmr ;

¶34

V.&o,r,^#

¶35

(OA.No.329 of 2023)

¶36

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶37

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

¶38

7' Defendants ca'ed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.1g. In view of the above, I hold that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶39

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.90,31,O3O/_ (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Thirty One thousand and Thirty only ) a) A sum of Rs.49,90,127/_ from defendant no.1 under housing loan account No.039530100108150 with future interest @ Byo p.a from date of applica lization; '7tr b) A sum of Rs.6,73,73.r#;;;&"",'m der housing loan '' :.. Ji,i Account No.039s3o1po'i3o2p46EF ffire @ Bolo p.a i.i:_. ? from date of appticatib.n ritr.{le date of :^pfql

¶40

(oA.No.329 of 2023)

¶41

c) A sum of Rs.2L,7L,3BS/- from defendant no.1 and 2 under Mortgage overdraft loan with future interest @ Bo/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶42

d) A sum of Rs.Ll,g5,7B2/- from defendant no.1 and 2 under staff overdraft loan with future interest @ Bo/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶43

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

¶44

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶45

and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

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

¶47

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

t4. communicate a copy glthe order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the p.A.
this the 26th day of

¶51

and pronounced by me in the open court on
26SEP2q : sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
\l
.Y, PRESIDING OFFICER
',','{L -ofC
,rwffi\w
{:
T'RT.I, HYDERTA " 1.

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Grocrate Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Loknadh Pharmacy and General Stores

Ms Sona Fashions Rep by its Proprietor Mr S Sudhir Kumar versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Saanvi Ssi

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Nitin Infra Projects

Manoj Kumar N versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited