Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sai Datta Food Industries

DRT28 May 2024OA/399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery petition filed by Union Bank of India against defendants for outstanding secured overdraft facility sum of Rs. 43,37,699/. The court held the bank established its claim and directed payment with interest and property realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 43,37,699/- and subsequent interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and other assets for realization.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Datta Food Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER OA.No.399 of 2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

Union Bank of India, (E- Andhra Bank), Mehdipatnam branch, Hyderabad, Telangana. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Sri Sai Datta Food Industries, Represented by its partners, H.No.2-2-647/B/4/A, Sai.Baba Nagar, BaghAmberpet, Hyderabad - 5OO 013.

¶8

Mrs. K. Siva Kumari, Aged major, occ: business, H.No.2-2-1 144/25/7, Flat_H, Sai Krishna Apartments, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500 044.

¶9

:;Tln;mrni?,.?:ii;"', s inr m i Mothinasar, nro"ruouo..*{?,,..,L endants e-Tl counselfortheparties:'WW For the Applicant Sri Momin Mohammed Rafiq For the Defendants Expa rte

¶10

(oA. No.399/2022)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.43,37,699/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Thirty Seven thousand Six hundred and Ninety Nine onry) with subsequent interest @ 11.700lo p.a with monthry rests arong with penar interest @ 20k p.afrom date of firing of oA tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged immovabre property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶13

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 represented by defendants no.z & 3 avaired SoD limit of Rs.22,20,000/- on 24.03.2017 vide sanction letter dated 24.03.2017. To secure due repayment of above amount, the defendants executed sanction Ietter, demand promissory note, consent letter and composite agreement dated 24.03.2017. As a security towards repayment of secured overdraft facility, the defendant no.3 mortgaged the immovable property more fully described in the schedule or prop-er_ty.- $ by depositing the original sare deed no.B7 9 / 2006 d.t9df'1i$: illzOoeo .,L "''Jtl€^{defendant no'3} rt'.':n v;t executed memorandum ot;1,'dlsposit dl,title d6.d;i vide document ii -,-:. no'4777/20Lo oateo os.oQ'.z6ro. ? hrtbi{ #ri{rin9,inu ,oun racirities, i ., 'r-:,,i the defendants failed t o comp{ the terms of - sanction, '"' hence the applicant bank was constrained to ctasJq, the..account as NpA and

¶14

¶15

(oA.No.3e9/2022)

¶16

issued legal notice dated t2.L0.2020. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶17

Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 14.08.2023.

¶18

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

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

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?

¶21

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.12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA e Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitl m made in the OA with future interest and c 2 o ilrY zril ji: .6 ,st"'/.,";^il

¶22

¶23

(oA. No.399/2022 )

¶24

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

¶25

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.43,37,699/_ (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Thirty Seven thousand Six hundred and Ninety Nine only) with subsequent interest @ 11.70% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶26

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶27

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶31

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶33

,, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
d" fioay or May 2024)
f,lv sd/_
2 B lt4'r 2321 cift.#"ry-'- J:''"' ff ':ll|"1
-'2t/'rv<br>Issl. Eeglstrsr
DqI..r, i{ )./B;jtA 8,,1D.

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sai Datta Food Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sai Datta Food Industries

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

State Bank of India versus Late Mrs.D Vijaya

Uco Bank versus Smt. Rama Laxmi Patra

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

Union Bank of India versus Mrs.Kukalakntakavitha

Dilip Bhosale versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Sunitha Burugu versus Idbi Bank