Allowed

Uco Bank v. Chakradhar Chowdary

DRT8 Jul 2024OA/49/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Origin Application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 53,35,001.74 against three defendants who failed to comply with loan terms for term loan and short-term credit, declaring them jointly and severally liable. Costs were awarded to the bank.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay total sum of Rs.53,35,001.74 p.a. with interest; recovery certificate issued against hypothecated assets and properties.

Uco Bank versus Chakradhar Chowdary — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.49 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

UCO Bank, Malakpet branch, # 76-02-705/28, Mumtaz College road, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036. Represented by its Chief Manager Cum Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri V. Chakradharchowdary, S/o Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, aged major, Occ: business, male, H. No. 1-4-200l41C, Eshwaripuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Kapra, ECIL Post, block no.4, Keesara, Hyderabad - 500 062.

¶10

Also at

¶11

Flat no.503, Sri Harsha Residency, Mudinepalli village and mandal, Krishna district - S2L 325.

¶12

Also at Lingala village, Mandavallim r"B5 Gudiwada Revenue division, Krishna district, Ap - 521 32 J^oBrumr : ,rft t 2. Sri v. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri V. Shivaji Rao, aged m Occ: business, male, H.No. 1-4-200l41C, Eshwaripurie,--'t}Y Colony, Sainikpuri, Kapra, ECIL

¶13

(OA.No.a9l2023)

¶14

Post, block no.4, Keesara, Hyderabad - 500 062.

¶15

Smt V. Anuradha, w/o Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, aged major, occ: business, female, H.No. 1-4-200141C, Eshwaripuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Kapra, ECIL Post, block no.4, Keesara, Hyderabad - 500 062.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the parties:

¶18

For the Applicant

¶19

For the Defendants

¶20

Smt K. Nandini alias Smt A. Nandini Reddy Sri Mukesh Sharma

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a tota I sum of Rs.53,3S,OOl.74ps (Rupees Fifty

¶23

three Lakhs Thirty Five thousand and one and paise seventy

¶24

four only)ie..,

¶25

a) A sum of Rs.19,27,833.23ps under term roan with interest @

¶26

9.05o/o p.a with monthly rests from 0t.02.2023 till the date of realization;

¶27

b) A sum of Rs.34,07,168. rtterm cred it with interest @ 10.05% p.a with 2.2023 till the date of 1?s",'ffi realization and a .T'^{''6"'iTfl'ffiioun} and in default fo sale of frypotneiatedE and mortgaged i "..,^r'. s) ^3r immovable property ules to oA. KryH$fis

¶28

(OA.No.49/2023)

¶29

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 avaired term roan of Rs.20.00 rakhs under priority sector (farm credit) vide sanction letter dated 06.09.2021 and arso short term credit of Rs.3o.oo rakhs under UCo Fishery scheme vide sanction retter dated 07.ro.2o2L. The term roan rimit was secured by hypothecation of assets more fully described in OA. Defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors and mortgaged the schedure mentioned residentiar property vrde sanction letter dated 28.01.2020 and created security interest by registering the memorandum of deposit of tifle deeds in favour of the Appricant bank. After avairing the loan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 29.11.2022 and issued recafl notice dated 30.71.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Ld. Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed written statement. Hence the right of filing Written statement of D.1 to 3 was forfeited on 06.02.2024.

¶31

Sri K.R.R. Rajya anager of the Applicant Bank examined nimspfr.$aw. o "JlS\ rerevant documents, which pplicant bank filed a part are marked T-:-oO gtql,t2mf rhg W;.).,o, €.,*x,rr#

¶32

(oA.No.4912023)

¶33

satisfaction memo stating that the defendants paid a sum of

¶34

Rs.17.OO lakhs during the pendency of OA.

¶35

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶36

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Appllcant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the oA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶37

7' Ld counsel for defendants Fired vakarath but not fired wS. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.27. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiUed to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶38

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

¶39

The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.53,35,OOL.74ps (Rupees Fifty three Lakhs Thirty Five thousand and one and paise seventy

¶40

rour onry) ,..., /'.-'SW\ a) A sum or R{i+pt27,BsSps un'&' rm loan with interest @

¶41

o C.oA. ?qp3?fl1the e oF realization ;

¶42

.rrj 4 , .\ !Fkr;+.*.nP

¶43

(oA.No.4912023)

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.34,07,168.51ps under short term credit with interest @ 10.05o/o p.a from O1O2.2023 tiil the date of realizationLESS a sum of Rs.17.OO lakhspaid by defendants ;

¶45

10' The Appricant bank is entired to proceed against the hypothecated assets and mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person

¶47

and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

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

¶49

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶50

of receipt of order.

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordin gly.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

nscnbed by her, corrected, sion
ot Juty,2024) - ed and pronounced by me in the open
qH..B
JRUE COW.
sd/-
)/ O 6-J -Y-
(G. GOPICHAND)
t"'"6f'zt
PRESIDING OFFICER
Asrl Roglstrar
ORT.I, |IYDERAfiAD,

¶54

Uco Bank v. Chakradhar Chowdary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Chakradhar Chowdary

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Lambadi Gulab Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S. L.N. Engineering Industries

Canara Bank versus Sri. Jadav Gangadhar Rao

Uco Bank versus Srinivasa Rao

Canara Bank versus Sri Bassi Jagadish

Canara Bank versus Sri Bassi Bicha @ Bassy Bitchya @ Bassi Bitchya