Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Raghavendra Moulding Doors

DRT28 Feb 2024OA/41/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Summons Debts Recovery Tribunal OA.No.41 of 2022 filed by Union Bank of India. The Court held the Applicants Bank had established its claim and awarded recovery with future interest against defendants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 27,77,054.35 with future interest @ 13.25% p.a. A recovery certificate was issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Raghavendra Moulding Doors — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.41 of 2022

Between:

Union Bank of India,

Branch at Mettuguda,

Mahbubnagar town and dist

¶9

Represented by its Manager

¶10

Applicant

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

M/s. Raghavendra Moulding Doors

¶13

Prop: Ms. Radhamma,

¶14

H. No. 1-7- 150/2, Vivekananda

¶15

Nagar, Mahbubnagar.

¶16

Ms. Radhamma,

¶17

Prop: M/s. Raghavendra

¶18

Moulding doors,

¶19

D/o Sri Kistappa,

¶20

H.No. 1-7-150l2, Vivekananda Nagar, Mahbubnagar.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the Parties:

¶23

For the Applicant Sri P. Balaji

¶24

For the Defendants Exparte

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The OA against Defendants for recovery 7,O64.35ps (Rupees Twenty Seven sand Sixty four and

¶27

(OA.No.41 of 2022)

¶28

paiseThirty five only) with future interest @ 13.25% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization.

¶29

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietrix defendant no.2 availed term loan facility of Rs.24,95,000/- for purchase of machinery and equipments. The defendants executed composite agreement dated 28.03.2018 agreeing to repay the said loan in 84 monthly installments. 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 and issued notice dated 15.09.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 26.09.2022.

¶31

Shri Amit of the Applicant Bank examined himself as relevant docu me nts, which are marked as

¶32

Heard the Ld.

¶33

(OA.No.41 of 2022)

¶34

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?

¶35

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.5. 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.

¶36

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

¶37

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.27,77,O54.35ps (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Seventy Seven thousand Sixty four and paise Thirty five only) with future interest @ 13.25% p.afrom date of application till realization.

¶38

a) and properties of defendants No.2 and firm towards realization of the

¶39

¶40

(OA.No.41 of 2022)

¶41

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

¶42

d) Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

e) Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of Feb'2024)

¶45

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESID!NG OFFICER

¶46

{f""ffi 1*
*' -!
.l n rit- ; i_
^-n.
.i 2 8 v\ 2tt4 i
,t
": -- t:-.

¶47

tr':{:k
Asst. Raglttar
oRr-t" l:viERneno'

¶48

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Raghavendra Moulding Doors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Raghavendra Moulding Doors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Aam Hospitals

Canara Bank versus M/S. Oasis Interior

Sri Akku Srinivas Rao versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Sunali Associates

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vishwa Apparel

Canara Bank versus M/S. Blue Max Impex (India) Private Limited