Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vedha Marketing

DRT18 Mar 2024OA/356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank recovery tribunal allowed application for recovery of outstanding loan amount of Rs. 32.28 lakhs with interest, holding applicant bank established its claim against mortgagors.

What did the court decide?

Applicants are entitled to recover Rs. 32,28,118 plus interest and proceed against mortgaged properties and person of defendant no.1.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vedha Marketing — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.356 oJ 2O22

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Kodad Main branch, Kodad, Suryapet district, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Vedha Marketing, Situated at Sy. No.34B/AA3, Ashok nagar, TammarabandPalem, Kodadmandalam, Suryapet district, Telangana State - 508 206. Represented by its Proprrietrix SmtSanga laRajani W/o S. Jagan Mohan Rao.

¶10

SmtSangalaRajani, w/o S. Jagan Mohan Rao, aged about 32years, occ: business, R/o H.No.6-21, Avalapuram, Tammarabandapalem, Kodad Mandal, suryapet district, ffi.r8"-* Telangana - 508 206. B^{'"-*i</sup> 'A}

¶11

€i

¶12

Sri S. Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o S. Radha Krishna, male, : 1B ,?t 4t * Aged about 36 years, occ: 5-43, Alvalapuram village, K Mandal, Suryapet district, Telangana State - 508 206.

¶13

(oA.3s6 of 2022)

¶14

Sri Kanneti Shiva, S/o K. prasada Rao, Male, R/o H.No.14-13718, Hanuman Nagar, Beside Anjani apartments, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 206. Telangana State.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant

¶18

For the Defendants

¶19

Sri M.V.S. Prasad

¶20

Sri D. Raghavulu

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.32,28,118/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Eighteen only)

¶23

with futureinterest @ 11.20% p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendary[lbZtS"g proprietorship firm represented by its sole propri nd defendants 3 and 4 are mortgagors avail 12.2017. Defendant no.3 created m ifl",$,sr"tr{d p,.6 es more fully described in the

¶25

,g. :j

¶26

sched nts executed composite agreement, Sa+rtW

¶27

(OA.356 of 2022)

¶28

general form of agreement dated 21.L2.2017 and memorandum of deposit of title deeds vide doc.No.B160/2017 dated 20.L2.20t7 and 8t6l/20L7 dated 20.12.2017 registered in SRO, Kodad, Suryapet district. 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 L5.04.2021 and issued demand notice dated 16.04.202t. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶29

Shri D. Raghavulu filed vakalath for all defendants but failed to file

¶30

Written Statement.

¶31

Sri B.S.S. KrishnaKanthaNayak, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶32

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim 1^{the OA against the Defendantsas} prayed for? 6-8\ H^{18 fi/rfr :zu'zi} Wr,gP

¶34

(OA.355 of 2022)

¶35

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed WS. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim 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.

¶36

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

¶37

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.32,28,118/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Eighteen only) with future interest @ 11.20olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶38

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

¶39

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant properties of defendant no.1 tt. .qf}'\

¶40

firm towards realiz q.g.UtUrls\ scq

¶41

The Applicant Ba entftl$0l.!g1 the OA.

¶42

%*r-W

¶43

(OA.3s6 of 2022)

¶44

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

¶45

of receipt of order.

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the pa rties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March, 202.4)

¶49

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

ffi.8
: 1E nus ?wt
rd- ?
W,$Y

¶51

Jrl!,EpoP,y
L 1,. (. {^-11--
o^t:i;t{il!f;,1^

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vedha Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vedha Marketing

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 Maharashtra versus Sri Sai Pharma Distributors

Indian Bank versus Ms Be rollex Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mahamood

Uco Bank versus Mr. Somagani Varaprasad

Union Bank of India versus Smt Machineni Sujatha

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Smr Tours and Travels