Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Laxmi Narashimha Binny Rice Mill

DRT10 Jan 2024OA/336/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an oxygen application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of an outstanding loan sum of Rs. 39,95,606. The court held the defendants jointly liable for payment with interest and authorized the bank to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 39,95,606 with interest at 10.70% p.a.; Bank permitted to auction secured properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF JANUARY'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.336 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Branch office at Bheemgal, Nizamabad district, TS. Represented by its Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri LaxmiNarashimhaBinny Rice Mill, Prop: SriramAravindkumar, OppPeddammagudi, Near to Bheemgal -kamarpally road, puraniper village, Bheemgal, Nizamabad - 503 307.

¶9

Sri SriramAravind Kumar, S/o Ramulu, male, aged major, Occ: business, H.No.3-20, village Baba nagar, Mandal Bheemgal, District Nizamabad - 503 307.

¶10

Sri DharanikotaDattadri, S/o Narayana, major, male, Occ: business, H.No. 13-67/3, Village and mandalBheemgal, District Nizamabad - 503 307.

¶11

Sri Dharanikota Ashok, s/o Babanna, aged major, occ: business, H.No.3-274 village Babapur, mandalBeemgal, district Nizamabad - 503 307.

¶12

1 C J|}| z$zt

¶13

Counsel for the^pa rties:

¶14

For the Applicant

¶15

Sri V. Raghu

¶16

. .. ;/' ,..:^:.^--n'

¶17

(OA.No.336 of 2022)

¶18

For the Defendants 1 & 2 Defendants 3 & 4

¶19

Shri T. Srinivas Goud

¶20

Exparte

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,95,6O6l_ (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Ninety Five thousand Six hundred and Six only) with subsequent interest @ lO.7Oo/o p.awith monthly rests from 24.09.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged immovable properties as mentioned in the schedules^,,A to C,, to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 with guarantors defendants 2 to 4 avaired open cash credit of Rs.40,00 lakhs on 1g.06.201g. The defendants 1 and 2 deposited original title deeds along with sale deed no'220/2014, sare deed no.660/2008 and sare deed no.238 0/2007 dated 17.09.2007 in respect of all rice mill lands and buildings situated at puranipet vi[age, Bheemgarmandar, Nizamabad district more fully described in the sc Defendants 1 & 2 deposited original sale -6o.Ss 24.06.2004 in rl lx respect of schedule menti "C" property. availing the 10 Jtl,|^?pf loan facilities, the defenda of sanction,

¶24

(oA.No.336 of 2022)

¶25

hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 3t.t2.2021 and issued demand notice dated L4.L0.202L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Counsel for Defendants 1 & 2 fted vakalath but not filed Written statement. Defendant no.3 & 4 were set exparte on 30.06,2023.

¶27

Shri S. Bhoopal, Senior Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

6' 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?

¶30

Defendants 3 & 4 called absent and set exparte. Counsel for defendants 1 & 2 filed vakalath but not filed WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and documents as Ex.A1 to A. 15. In view of r*"' e Applicant Bank has -::7) established their clai made- 1 ia the fl ,llil OAri] gai the Defendants and

¶31

(OA.No.336 of 2022)

¶32

hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

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

¶34

9' The Defendants are joinry and severary riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.39,95,606/_ (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Ninety Five thousand Six hundred and Six only) with subsequent interest @ 10.700lo p.a from 24.Og.2l22till realization.

¶35

i) The Applicant Bank is entiued to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedules^.'A to C,, to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

iv) The Appricant sha[ fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

::ri9"d.^bl-Er,^{corrected,signedand pronounced} by me in the open of )an'2024],

¶42

sd/-

¶43

(G. GOPTCHAND) Asst. R'ljistrct PRESIDING OFFlCER DRT.I, !!YOERAP.AD.

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Laxmi Narashimha Binny Rice Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Laxmi Narashimha Binny Rice Mill

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Svls Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Surex Engineering Works

State Bank of India versus M/S. Madhu Infra

Bank of India versus M/S. Prius Enterprises Private Limited

M/s Sls Power Corporation ltd., versus M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

Indian Bank versus M/S. Dsb Enterprises