Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Kunda Transformers Private Limited

DRT22 Mar 2024OA/333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. The court found the defendants liable based on evidence and dismissed the defense regarding RBI guidelines and limitation. The bank can recover the principal amount with interest and proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of joint and several liability; recovery of principal sum with 13% p.a. interest; permission to realize debt from hypothecated/mortgaged properties and person/properties of defendants

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Kunda… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22NDDAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.333 OF 2022

¶5

Between :

¶6

City Union Bank ltd, Himayathnagar branch, Hyderabad, Telangana. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Kunda Transformers Private Ltd, Represented by its Director, No.A-20/2/C, road no.13, IDA, Nacharam, Uppal, Hyderabad- 76.

¶10

Mrs.SangeethaKunda, w/o Ravi Kunda, major, female, flat no.102, Plot no.198 kunda Residency, Road no.7, west Municipality, Secunderabad - 500 026.

¶11

Mr. Ravi Kunda, s/o Krishna murthyKunda, male, major, Flat no.102, Plot no.198, Kunda Residency, Road no.7, West Municipality, Secunderabad - 500 026.

¶12

¶13

Mrs. K. Anjamma, w/o Krishnamurthy Kunda, major, female, Flat no.102, Plot no.198, Kunda Residency, Road no.7, West Municipality, Secunderabad - 500 026.

¶14

,,@;lN
/ i^ns- S -U<br>F. Z 7. titn fr:1t :;
:'.;"s. p $l
';me,#

¶15

(oA. No.333/2022 )

¶16

Mrs. Rama Bhandari, w/o Devender Bhandari, major, female, 3-6-L9O/2, No.17, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad - 500 029. Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant

¶19

For the Defendant No.1 to 5

¶20

Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana Sri D. Raghavulu

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.8o,47,416.08ps (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Forty Seven thousand Four hundred Sixteen and paise eight only) with interest @ 13% p.awith monthly rests fromdate of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as described in the schedule "A & B" to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a private Limited Company and defendants 2 and 3 are its directors, and defendants 4 & 5 being guarantors availed OLC lakhs, BG limit of Rs.20 lakhs -z''i^{ti;l lr'- ullqt} and OSL special nafrOf'asJ'.Smakn3 16. The OLCC limit was li^f# {} reduced ov nonricflr 0"T ,;-,lunnrr, Rs.BO lakhs towards r."61 t'l- Z7rli'ii-'t "; working capital r"lifitr"rn"nir riie sa'ncti6a/ dated 25.01.2020. .. '-,... ..: ..^! !^,i l.::-.:, ,'

¶24

(oA. No.333/2022)

¶25

The defendant no.1 avaired covid crisis roan of Rs.5 rakhs vide sanction letter dated 25.tL.2017. The defendant no.1 availed the loan facilities and defendants 2 to 5 being guarantors executed various documents in favour of Applicant Bank. Defendants t and 2 created hypothecation charges on movable stocks, machinery and also the vehicle purchased out of the osl Term loan of Rs.10 lakhs as mentioned in the schedule of property. Defendants 3 & 4 deposited the tiue deeds of Application mentioned B property on 19.11.2015 with an intention to create an equitable mortgage of said property.

¶26

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to pay the debt. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued demand notice dated 05.02.2022 and possession notice dated 24.0g.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.go,47,416.Ogps (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Forty Seven thousand Four hundred Sixteen and paise eight only) with interest @ 13olo p.a with monthly rests from date o rea lization. Hence the oA.

¶27

The Defendant <iI rJi. ritpo, wrrtteri:&ateg4-: ,^{t and defendants 2 to 5} adopted the sa the averments stated in

¶28

(oA.No.33312022)

¶29

the OA. It is contended that the Applicant bank invoked SARFAESI measures and issued demand notice dated 05.02.2022, possession notice dated 24.08.2022 and thereafter issued tender cum auction notice dated 07.09.2022. Challenging the same the defendants filed SA.No.26412022 in DRT-II which is pending adjudication. The defendant No.1 also filed WP.13490/2023 before High court of Telangana which was dismissed and subsequently 5A.462/2023 was filed which is pending for adjudication. Hence prayed for dismissal of oA.

¶30

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by SriSuman Kumar Sarkar, Senior Branch Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 39 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.39. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶31

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶32

Now , the points that arise for considera tion are:
i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in
OA against the defendqglff
".".f-,'';
ii) To what relief ? .,' . .t ,i,u'i,.. , "1'::'i' '
,', "i_' ' i
Point No.i)t'i t .-'. / )'i:' ,- ;i.? l: .ri;''
li ^ tl
tl ;. '- "t
:
u. .

¶33

(oA.No.333/2022)

¶34

6' AW.1 who was examined on beharf of the Appricant have crearry deposed the riabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A. 1 to A.39 exhibited by the Appricant bank crearry estabrish the riabirity of the defendants.

¶35

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant no.2 examined himserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to them. The defendants having taken the plea that the appricant bank did not foilow the RBI guiderines and the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents executed by the bank makes clear that ail the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are riabre to pay the OA claim. Even the particulars of other payments if any made by the defendants are not furnished by them. considering ail the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entiUed to claim the oA amount from defendants. Therefore, the oA claim deserves to be allowed agair

Point No.ii)

(oA.No.333/2022)

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

¶40

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.8O,47,41G.Ogps (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Forty Seven thousand Four hundred Sixteen and paise eight only) with interest @ 13olo p.a from date of applicationtill realization.

¶41

ii) The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as described in schedule "A &B"to OA.

¶42

iii) the Applicant Bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendants no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

9, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

nscribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open March'2024)

¶48

,.i:l

¶49

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) TguE^qoPl PRESIDING OFFICER /t.!.'fiJ a"",.6{,f2'^ DP{-t, HYDERABAD.

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Kunda Transformers Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Kunda Transformers Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Building Constructions

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Laxmi Prasanna Trading

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Bhaskara Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohd Abdul Razzak Quadri

Smt Meera Thakur versus Central Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus v. S. Constructions and Developers