Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Unituss Life Sciences

DRT1 Jan 2024OA/43/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an operating account application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues from a borrower firm and its guarantor partners. The court held the bank established its claim and granted relief.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.31,98,659.90 plus interest; Applicant Bank to proceed against mortgaged property, persons and properties of defendants.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Unituss Life Sciences — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1STDAY OF JANUARY' 2(024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.43 of 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Saleemnagar branch, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s, UNITUSS LIFE SCIENCES, Represented by its partners

¶9

H. No.13- 1-22 /3/Np, prabhath

¶10

Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy

¶11

District - 500 036. TS.

¶12

2, Sri Turlapati Satish, s/o T. Chakrapani Rao, male, aged about 55 years,

¶13

occ: business ( partner of M/s. Unituss Life Sciences) R/o flat no.504, Satya Sai Shivaram Heights, H.No. 16-1 1-405/2 and 3, SBI officer's colony, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad

¶14

SmtTurla patiGayatri, Female, W/o t. Satish, Aged about 55 years, Occ: business (partner of M/s. Unituss Life Sci Defendants 7,& Counsel for the Pa rties : dr, For the Applicant 0 1 .tAr{ 2Eti r"8i lly Jhansi Rani For the Defendants 1

¶15

(oA.No.43l2023)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,9g,659.9ops (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Nanety Eight thousand Six hundred Fifty Nine and Paise Ninety only) with current and future interest @ L4.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partners. Defendant no.1 is borrower, defendants 2 & 3 are partners as weil as guarantors, The defendants executed composite agreement for secured over draft loan, demand promissory note and RF,256 executed by security owner of property. Defendant no.1 deposited title deeds vide doc.No.2O22 of 2015 and created equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned property. The defendants executed extension of memorandum of deposit of titre deed vide extension of deposit of title deeds vide document no.4305 of 2015 dated 05.10.2015. After avaiting j!+aq:Sitities, the defendants faited to complv the terms f*{:**,e.u*ttr&k,n" appticant bank was constrained to ctasgify;tthe accor.rnt as NbSbr 29.06.2ltg and issued demand notice oaiq4 2s.Uii.z0ilb,2qqrrr,*j}, severat requests and

¶19

: $"'..^, ^,'\fl/

¶20

(oA.No.43l2023)

¶21

demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶22

Defendants called absent and set exparte on L4.0g.2023.

¶23

Shri Manoj Kumar Naik, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶24

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.16. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiUed to er the claim made in the OA with

¶29

future interest and

¶30

In the result, the i[.t 6n1 idlalrdfiUo t costs, as under; W"#

¶31

(oA.No.43l2023)

¶32

9 The Defendants are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.31,98,6S9.9Ops (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand six hundred Fifty Nine and paise Ninety onty) with current and future interest @ 14.75o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till reallzation.

¶33

i) The Applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

11, Communicate a copy of the order to the pariles concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribe_d- by.her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the lstday of Jan,2O24)

¶40

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
/1tJ NUF,a<
L(/.J. YyY?:NYOFFICERd
onr.,, iv*i-, aii'ii{iio. ^n

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Unituss Life Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Unituss Life Sciences

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Chandra Hospitality Services

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Sai Learners Valley Educations Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S Shiva Ganapathi Traders (Borrower)

Indian Bank versus M/S Palaka Inder Kanth

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Sri Deepthi Prints

Indian Bank versus M/S Aarthi Enterprises