Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Enkay Auto Industry

DRT20 May 2024OA/344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's очерк for recovery of Rs. 29.44 lakhs from the defendant firm and its guarantors, confirming liability with future interest and costs, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 29,44,611.18 + future interest @ 13% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Enkay Auto Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF MAY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.344 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, # 5-8-57 0 / A, ground floor, BSNL Door Sanchar Bhavan, Nampally station road, Hyderabad - 500 001. Represented by its Branch Head

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Enkay Auto Industry, Represented by its proprietor Mr. ShaikNayeemullah, s/o ShaikMasthan, aged 62 years, # L5-L-4tL/3, shop no.3, Feelkhana, Begum bazar, Hyderabad - 500 012.

¶10

Mr. ShaikNayeemullah, s/o ShaikMasthan, aged 62 years, # 6- I- 140 / A, street no.9, Beside Sai Kiran Apartments, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad - 500 025.

¶11

MrsTabassumAra, w/o ShaikNayeemullah, aged 49 years, #6-1-140/A, street no.9, beside Sai Kiran Apartments, Pad ma raonaga r, Secunderabad - 500 025.

¶12

(oA. No.34al2023)

¶13

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrala For the Defendants Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,44,611.19ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Forty Four thousand six hundred Ereven and paise Eighteen only) i.e., (Rs.22,28,343.26ps + Rs.4,4g,79,OOO/_ + Rs.2,66,477.92 ps ) with further interest @ 13o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in defautt for sale of mortgaged immovabre property and hypothecated goods as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietor concern represented by its proprietor Mr. shaik Nayeemuila/ defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the roans avaired by 1st and 2nd defendants, The defendants availed credit facilities of Rs.g.00 lakhs as working capital requirement, security of hypothecation of stocks in manufacturing, processing and s at factory, Azamabad, Musheerabad, Hyderabad executed composite '"A \ agreement, RF-211-A Demand ,.v nJ6 r of Access RF237, rent letter aFi 232,7 ft.rlilo'n'8u.r and RF-255

¶17

(oA.No.3aal2023)

¶18

memorandum of deposit of TD etc. Defendant no.2 executed memorandum of deposit of title deeds, registered as document no.3225/20t9 in favour of Applicant Bank and also deposited original sale deed no.139212009 and link document sale deed no.115/2008 are secured with mortgage of schedule mentioned property. On 16.09.2019, the Applicant bank enhanced and renewed OCC of Rs.12.00 lakhs for working capital requirement. On 17.03.2020, the defendants executed composite agreement, schedule - VIII, CIBIL and property statement. 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 on 03.t1.2022 and issued demand notice dated 07.L2.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 18.04.2024.

¶20

Shri Aditya Shankar, branch head of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.57.

¶21

Heard the Ld.

¶22

(oA. No.34412023)

¶23

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?

¶24

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 exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.57. 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 entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶25

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

¶26

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.29,44,611.18ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Forty Four thousand Six hundred Eleven and paise Eighteen only) i.e., (Rs.22,28,343.26ps + Rs.4,49,79,000/- + Rs.2,66,477.92 ps ) with further interest @ 13olo p.afrom date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶27

The Applicant bank is e against the hypothecated in schedule to OA movabres ana norrsq{?fp;;ffi ' t.- "t towards reatization "f;tff," o"ptpg,fry mll * !. i:r'A*^. s.i,'ii i;:i.-"*?{11 '].r{&U&E?'

¶28

(OA. No.344/2023)

¶29

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶30

and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶33

of receipt of order.

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2oth day of May' 2024)

¶37

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

7 0 t4ly lffii

¶39

O TRUE,COP}-\ gl-.:*t<br>nl",|i6ffi'
Dl?I..r, Hi? i.:?...:r.5.4 D.

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Enkay Auto Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Enkay Auto Industry

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

Smt Shahnaaz Zaidi versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Yadadri Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Sandeep Kumar Reddy

Uco Bank versus Smt. Rama Laxmi Patra

Union Bank of India , (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) versus M/S. Venugopal Cotton Industries

Indian Bank versus Ms Indeevar Industries