Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr.Bheemisetty Nikhil Kumar

DRT15 Feb 2024OA/47/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of an education loan of approximately Rs. 33.82 lakhs along with interest and costs from the primary borrower and guarantors. The court held the bank established its claim through document evidence and authorized realization against mortgaged properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendants to pay Rs.33,82,410.68 with interest at 11.50% p.a. from 11.10.2022; authorized realization against mortgaged and personal properties; issued Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Mr.Bheemisetty Nikhil… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.47 ot 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union bank of India, (E- Andhra Bank) Nampalty, Hyderabad - 5OO OO1. Telangana State Represented by its Senior manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M,r. Bheemisetty Nikhil Kumar, s/o Bheemisettyven katesh, aged 32 years, flat no.302, surya Apartments, #1 1_11_23, Indira Nagar, Road no.2, Sowbhagyapuram, Kothapet, Hyderabad - 5OO 035.

¶9

Mr. BheemisettyVenkatesh, Aged 59 years, flat no.3O2, surya Apartments, #1 1_1 1_23, Indira Nagar, Road no.Z Sowbhagyapurar, roinlpet, Hyderabad - 500 035.

¶10

Mr. Radha Krishna Kalva,
Yg i"ll.,l:.9y9n9, ased 62 years,
#4-3-35l9A, WHS
Ranga Reddy district
Defendants
Counsel for the pa
For the Applicant
; 15rrom vas Rao Chakrala
For the Defendants
Sridhar Reddy

¶11

(OA.No.47 of 2023)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.33,g2,41o.6gps (Rupees Thirty three Lakhs Eighty two thousand Four hundred ten and paise sixty Eight only) with interest @ 11.50o/o p.a from 11.10.2022 till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶14

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 avaired Education roan of Rs.20.00 rakhs to pursue MBA in Frorida. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the said loan and offered coilaterar security for the Education roan. Defendant no.1 executed deed of assignment and speciar power of attorney. On 02.05.2015 the defendants executed composite agreement and on 16.05.2015, the defendant no.3 executed memorandum of deposit of title deeds regd as No.1759/2015 and 278L/2015. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 20.04,2022 and issued demand notice dated Og.Og.2O2 of several requests and demands, the defendantslrO.f,bt i tstanding. Hence this f'<i'. oA.

¶15

15FE|M/,

¶16

(OA.No.47 of 2023 )

¶17

Ld counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed Written statement.

¶18

Shri Aditya Shankar, Branch Head of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.2 to A.23.

¶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

7 ' Ld counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed written statement. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A2 to A.23. 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.

¶22

B. with costs, as under: 9. The and severally liable to pay to

¶23

the Rs.33,82,41O.68ps (Rupees

¶24

(OA.No.47 of 2023)

¶25

Thirty three Lakhs Eighty two thousand Four hundred ten and paise Sixty Eight only) with interest @ 11.50% p.a from lL.10.2022 till realization.

¶26

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

¶27

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the p A., transcribed by-her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of Feb, ZO24)

¶33

i$$u<br>1 5 'r1 2m jk}
ii;
(r*,,- ",:,:.F)

¶34

sdl-
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ffu,l coPy
/<l'l/t--,e.- -
' iilj{,,; f i'liE|tr,F I "
4 rr*
4

Union Bank of India v. Mr.Bheemisetty Nikhil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr.Bheemisetty Nikhil Kumar

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Ravi Kiran Medical Agencies

State Bank of India versus Mr. Syed Nasir Hussain

Sri Modem Ravinder versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Shrirama Polymers

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Turaab and Sons Private Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Swami Naidu Bora