Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Srinivasa Agencies

DRT26 Apr 2024OA/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 1.87 crores advanced by M/s. Srinivasa Agencies and its proprietor. The court held that the bank established its claim through the examination of its manager and relevant documents, deeming the respondents jointly and severally liable for the amount with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Allow applicant's OA. Declare respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,87,952.05 with future interest and costs, and proceed against secured property.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinivasa Agencies — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.35 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Hanamkonda branch, Warangal, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager And Principal Officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Srinivasa Agencies Prop: Mr. Jannapureddy Sriniuu, Reddy, H.No.16-95, Main road, Thorru r village, Thorrurmandal, Warangal district.

¶10

Sri Jannapureddy Srinivas Reddy, Prop M/s. Srinivasa Agencies, S/o JannapureddyPrathap Reddy, H.No.16-95, Main road, Thorru r village, Thorrurmandal, Warangal district.

¶11

Also at

¶12

H.No.2-6-1285, Bhavaninagar, Srinivasa colony, Hanamkonda-506 001.

¶13

H.No.3-6-369/8/1, street no.2, Gaganmahal, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.

001 .

(oA. No.3s/202 3)

Counsel for the parties; For the Applicant For the Defendants

Sri P. Balaji

Expa rte

ORDER

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.l,64,g7,952.O5ps (Rupees One crore sixty Four Lakhs Eighty seven thousand Nine hundrecr Fifty two and paise five only) with future interest @ 13.20% p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA ti, the date of rearization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 and defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors. The defendants avaired overdraft facirity with a rimit of Rs.116.00 rakhs against the mortgage of the schedure mentioned property. The defendant no.2 created mortgage by deposit of tiUe deeds in respect of schedure property with the bank on 12.07.2016. The defendants executed the following jg@F€H*Jn respect of secured overdraft loan: .'^:''. i',',' '" .,^'..."'l

¶23

il ru?H:,'""#;1#JBl,"lJ;i.fl,#3 a^{g,yr ,,} :ii c) lnterest agreement dated 29.09.2020 : S^,r,:i/

¶24

z ;,...., . .",,,,.nIlF/' xtgi,:%

¶25

(OA.No.3sl2023)

¶26

d) Letter regarding general lien etc (O2A) dated 28.09.2020

¶27

e) Composite hypothecation agreement dated 28.09.2020

¶28

f) Guarantee agreement SD 01 dated 28.09.2020

¶29

g) Confirmation of extension of mortgage security dt 28.09.2020.

¶30

On account of covid 19 pandemic, the defendants availed UGECL term loan of Rs.17.00 lakhs on 20.06.2020 and executed the following documents:

¶31

a) Request letter dt 22.06.2020

¶32

b) Demand^promissory note dt 22.06.2020

¶33

c) Letter enclosing the DPN (9M) dt 22.06.2020

¶34

d) Interest Agreement dt 22.06.2020

¶35

e) Letter regarding^general lien etc^(02A) dt 22.06.2020 f) Composite hypothecation agreement dt 22.06.2020

¶36

g) Term loan agreement dt 22.06.2020

¶37

h) Guarantee for line of credit and term loan

¶38

The defendants further availed GCCLE Term^loan facility of^rs.9.47 lakhs on 27 .12.2021, The said facilities were secured^by hypothecation of stocks and receivables and extension of^mortgage of schedule^property. The defendants executed term loan agreement, interest agreement, composite^{hypothecation agreement} and guarantee for line of credit and term loan.^{After availing the} loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the^terms of^sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to^{classify the accountas} NPA and issued demand notice dated 06.05.2022.^{Inspite of several} requests and demands, the defjxrd-arlts iii?qo1 clear^{the outstanding.} , I^j' _.. ..i-: ,:! I :.1 HencethisOA. -'-.'" i ,^.j'.- .iiⁱ .i r:^', 2 E li8 irili^' ri

¶39

Defendant No.s 1 to 3 cailed absent and set^{expditeon 06.09.2023.} .^-::.

¶40

(oA.No.3s/2023)

¶41

Sri K. Surya^prakash, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶42

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.22.

¶43

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶44

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

¶45

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶46

7' 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 rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.22. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶47

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

¶48

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a tota I ,87,952.O5ps (Rupees One

¶49

Crore Sixty Four ousand Nine hundred

¶50

(oA.No.3s/2023)

¶51

Fafty two and paise five only) with future interest @ 13.20olo p.afrom date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶52

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

¶53

The Applicant Bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶54

t2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶55

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

¶56

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶57

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶58

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of Aptil'2024)

¶59

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

d:YVY:i ,tl-i.-qt oarq, ut;ii:i-'iiitt

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Srinivasa Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Srinivasa Agencies

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

K Shasikala versus Canara Bank

M S Shiva Sai Jayalakshmi Tyres versus Punjab National Bank

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S.Shanmukha Traders

Amit Kumar Battu versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Smt. Anabham Tejaswi