Allowed

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S Sai Srinivasa and Co.

DRT18 Sept 2024OA/526/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery claim against defaulters. It held defendants jointly liable for principal, interest, and costs, directing issuance of a recovery certificate and permitting action against mortgaged and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs.1,01,75,094.86 with future interest and costs; permitting bank to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; directing issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) versus M/S Sai… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL'IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE 18thDAY OF SEPTEMBER'2024}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM.,L'LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATION No: 526 OF 2023}

¶4

UNION BANK^{OF INDIA} f Erstwhile Andhra^Bank) New Town Branch,^{Court Road,} Opposite Asha^Hospital, Anantha^pur - 515001. Rep. by its Authorized^Officer'

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ivl/s.Sai Srinivasa^{and Co.,} A proprletary Concern Represented bY its^ProP Nl r.A.Venkata Naidu Office at ShoP^{No.5,NPR Complex,} Chinmaya Na9ar,^AnanthaPur, Andhra Pradesh - 515001.

¶8

Mr.A.Venkata Naidu S/o. Late A.Rama^Naidu, Aged about 43 Years, Occ:^Business, R/o. Plot No.38, Engineering^College Road, Old SBI Colony, Ananthapur,^{A. P.}

¶9

lY rs.Naveena Kumari W/o.Mr.A.Venkata Naidu, Aged about 35 Years,^{Occ: Business,} R/o.Plot No.38, Engineering college Road, Old SBI Colony, Ananthapur,^A.P.

¶10

lYr.lvl.Rama Subba Naid u S/o.Mr.N.Peda Venkata^Ramudu, lrys

¶11

oa.No,526l2023

¶12

¶13

Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Business, H.No.4-15, Kadarakunta, Kuderu, Ananthapur, A.P-515711.

¶14

l,l rs. N. Leelavathi W/o.Mr.N.Subba Na idu, Aged about 52 Years, Occ: Business, H. No.4- 15, Kadarakunta, Kuderu, Ananthapur, A. P-51571 1.

¶15

M rs. N.Jayashree W/o.Mr.N.Umesh,

¶16

Aged about 40 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.64-35, Munsif Court Road, Chidambara Rao Street, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

¶17

... Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.V.Sethu Madhava Rao Defendants : Ex-parteEx-parte

¶19

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶20

:: ORDER::

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a^total sum of Rs.1,01,75,094.86ps i.e., a sum of^{Rs.87,26,160.54ps} under SOD A/c. No.038531100000520 with subsequent^interest @ 11.95olo^{(77.95+2o/openal) p.a. and asum of} Rs.14,48,934 .32ps under UGECL A/c.^{No.038530100069091} with subsequent interest @ 9.50o/o^{(7.50+2o/openal) p.a. from} the defendants^jointly and severally^{with monthly rests from} the date of application till the date of^{realization alongwith} costs and in default for^{saleof OA scheduleproperties.}

¶22

Summons served on^{D1 through paper publication,whereas} summons served on D2 to 6.^{They were set ex-parteon} 28.o2.2024as called absent^{and no representation .frr*l}

¶23

oA.NO.s26l2023

¶24

2 The Applicant Bank examined^{Manoj Kumar, Senior Manager,as} AW-1 and marked 30 documents^{through him as Ex. A.1to Ex'} A.30.

¶25

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant^{Bank reported orders maybe} passed through merits. Perused^{the materialplaced on record'}

¶26

The point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank^{is entitled} for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.30 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.526/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severa lly liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.1,01,75,094.86ps i.e., a sum of Rs.87,26,160.54ps under SOD A/c.No.038531100000520 and a sum of Rs. 14,48,934.3 2ps under UGECL A/c.No.038530100069091 with futu re ffi*t

¶31

oA.NO.s25l2023

¶32

¶33

interest @11.80o/o^{p'a' simple from the date} of application^{till the date of realization;}

¶34

ii) the OA claim^{is securedby way of mortgaged} properties described in the^{schedule annexed} to the OA and^{the applicant bank is entitled} to^proceed against^{the same to realise its} debt;

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the^{applicant bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶37

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date^{of receipt of this Order'}

¶38

q Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶39

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties} 9"Mi!9: ., ^. (oi.,.,"U to the^{steno, corrected,signedand pronounced by me in the open court 0n} this the^{18th Day of September, 2024)'}

¶40

ito

¶41

MESHWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S Sai Srinivasa and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S Sai Srinivasa and Co.

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

Similar cases

Mujeeb Rahman v K versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Abdul Kareem Haji Keyath versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Natubhai

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Maa Jagdamba Traders

Axis Bank versus Sh. Navneet Gulati

Uco Bank versus M/S Dreams Plus Consulting Pvt. Ltd.