Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Grocrate Enterprises

DRT25 Sept 2024OA/71/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRt allowed the OA filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues from M/s. Grocrate Enterprises and Mr. Enupa Rajesh, holding that the claim was established and enforcing liability with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 27,59,525/- with 9.05% p.a. interest; proceedings against hypothecated movables and properties allowed; Recovery Certificate directed.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Grocrate Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.71 ol 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Khammam Bus Station complex Branch, Khammam, Khammam District, Telangana - 507 002. Represented by its Sr. Br Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Grocrate Enterprises, Situated at H.No. 15-15-227 /3, VKP Towers, Sahakara Nagar, Khammam - 507 003, Khammam dist, TS Represented by its sole Proprietor

¶10

Mr. Enupa Rajesh.

¶11

Mr. Enupa Rajesh, s/o Govind Rao, aged 35 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.6-2-132/D, Zammibada, Khammam- 507 003 Khammam district, Telangarle State

¶12

Khammam district, Telangarle State Defendants
6
Counsel for the Parti ,1,?
For the Applicant Prasad
For the Defendants

¶13

(OA.No.77/20241

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.27,59,525/_ (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Nine thousand Five hundred and Twenty five only) with future interest @ 9.05o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is firm represented by its sore proprietor defendant no,2 availed term loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs and cash credit of Rs.23,75,000/- aggregating Rs.28,75,OOO/_ on L2.08.2022 and 07.t0.2022. The defendants executed General term loan agreement for Rs.5.00 lakhs, demand promissory note, hypothecation of goods and debts agreement dated 12.09.2022. After avairing the roan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued notices dated 10.11.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defend r the outstanding. Hence

¶17

this OA.

¶18

ff
ts e.+
*

¶19

rte on 12.07.2024. .(rDefendants No. 1 and, 14",,"3 "5ol5l, Hl

¶20

(OA.No.7U2024)

¶21

Sri B. Ashok, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself AS AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

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?

¶24

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 relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. 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.

¶25

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.27,59,525/- (Rupees Twenty

¶26

Seven Lakhs Fifty nd Five hundred and Twenty five only) with.z'-f 9.05o/o p.a from date of //'& application till the.Uate '{ 25stPml of lization;1? ''@t"'lf9')-LJ

¶27

(OA.No.71l2024)

¶28

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

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

¶31

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶32

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of Sept, 2024)

¶35

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Grocrate Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Grocrate Enterprises

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

Indian Bank versus M/S. B. Nagendra Nail Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus Sri. Anil Chakravarty Manthena

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nakka Muthyam Transport

Union Bank of India versus Mr. D. Tirupathi Reddy

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Loknadh Pharmacy and General Stores

Ms Sona Fashions Rep by its Proprietor Mr S Sudhir Kumar versus Union Bank of India