Allowed

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S Bramha Teja Paper Products

DRT19 Apr 2024OA/461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling approximately Rs. 8.78 crores. The court, hearing the matter ex-parte, held the respondents liable to pay the claimed amount along with future interest and costs, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 8,78,55,217 along with future interest @9.75% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

]N THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.com, L,L.B. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 461 OF 2022

¶4

Union Bank of India (Estwhile Andhra Ba nk) SME Nacharam Bra nch, 9-24, Street No.1, Plot No.63, H lvlT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad, rep by its Authorised Officer ...........Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

lvl/s. Bramha Teja^{paper products} Rep by Proprietor^parchuri Janaki Regd. Office at H. No.11-9- 130/3/C, Road No.3(a), Laxmi nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad-500035 (or) Plant at:Survey No.233/6 and 230, Kammaguda Village, Hayatnagar, Hyderabad.

¶7

Mrs. Parchuri Janaki, W/o. Mr.p.Sridhar Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business H. No.11-9- 130/3/C, Road No.3(a), Laxmi Nagar, Kothapet, Hydera bad - 5 00 03 5. 3. Mr. Parchuri Sridhar, S/o. Late P. Krishna Murthy Aged about 49 years, Occ:Business H. No.11-9- 130/3/C, Road No.3(a ), Laxmi Nagar, Kothapet, H ydera bad - 5000 3 5. Defendants. Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao Defendants l ex-0arte.1f*,\

Defendants.

oA.NO.461/2022

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s.19 of the^Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for the^recovery of^{a total} sum of Rs.8,78,55,277.A7^ps 1.e.,(Rs.3, 16,12,065/-^{with interest} @13.450/o^{(77.45 +2o/o penal) p.a. under TermLoan} A/c.No.103130100003749, Rs.3,09,28,397.96ps with^interest @13.45olo^(11.45 I 2o/o penal) p.a. under OCC A/c.No.103113046000734, Rs.1,30,95,530.01ps with^interest @13.45%^(77.45 +2o/o^{penal) p.a. under Term Loan-II} A/c.No.08733010O1244O4, Rs.23,47,209.97ps wlth^interest @15.300/o(13.30 +^{2olo penal) P.a. under TermLoan-II} A/c. No.08733010 0744037 , Rs.98,72,014.93ps with^interest @16.40olo^{(74.40+2o/openal)P.a. under lvlortgageLoan} A/c. No.103130100003095) from the defendants with monthly rests from the date of this O.A. till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule assets.

¶13

Counsel for D1 to 3 reported no instructions. D1 to 3 were set ex-parte on 73.04.2023, as called absent and no representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined Rohit Pandey, Chief Manager AS AW-1 and marked 46 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex.A.46.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the applicant bank reported orders may be passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶16

oA.NO.46tl2022

¶17

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA Schedule assefs?

¶20

As stated supra, defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A1 to 4.46 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.46t/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) the defendants are liable to pay to the sum of

¶23

Applicant Bank a Rs.B,78,55,217.B7ps with future interest @9.75olo^p.a. simple from the date of application i.e.,27 .06.2022 till the date of realization;

¶24

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation/mortgage of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. %iG*'

¶27

¶28

oA.NO.461/2022

¶29

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, siBned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2024).

¶32

frW**" (RkmESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S Bramha Teja Paper Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S Bramha Teja Paper Products

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

Similar cases

Md Hadikul Islam versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

State Bank of India versus M/S Ramrao Ginning Factory through Its Proprietor Shri Pavan S/O. Vijay Chavan

Axis Bank versus M P Girish

State Bank of India versus Chiragoni Shankaraiah

Indian Bank versus Veersham

Canara Bank versus Katta Lskahmi Kantamma