Allowed

Union Bank of India , (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S. Venugopal Cotton Industries

DRT22 May 2024OA/77/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this OA between Union Bank of India and various borrowers/guarantors, the Debts Recovery Tribunal ruled for the bank, holding it established its claim to recover approximately Rs. 5.24 crores and interested costs, directing payment and authority to proceed against mortgaged properties and properties of guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 5.24 crores with interest; Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and defendant properties; Recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.77 of 2OZ2

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India (E- Andhra Bank) Hanamkonda branch, NRR Road, Opp Hotel Ashoka, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana State. Represented by its authorized officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Venugopal Cotton Industries, Represented by its^proprietor, PenthalaKalyan Reddy, Survey no.5B3, 583/8, 583/C & 583/D, Gorrekunta village, Geesugonda ma nda l, Warangal district - 506 006.

¶10

Mr. PenthalaKalyan Reddy, s/o Late Malla Reddy, aged about 3B yearsmOcc: business, R/o H.No.11-18-415, Kashibugga Housing society colony, Warangal City, Warangal.

¶11

J. Mrs. PenthalaAruna, w/o Late Malla Reddy, aged about 58 years, occ: business, R/o H.No. 1 1-18-41S, Society Kashibugga, Warangal. ? ) itt, '^{,r.' 'Jt1} 1ry1,

¶12

Mrs. Jyothi, D/o Late p, Malla Reddy, Aged about 32 years, occ: housewife, R/o 11-18-415, society colony, Kashibugga, Warangal.

¶13

(OA.No.77 of 2022)

¶14

S. Sumalatha, D/o Late P. Malla Reddy, aged about 33 years, Occ: housewife, R/o 4-43, Gavicherla, Sangemmandal,

¶15

Mrs. ShailajaPenthala, w/o P. Kalyan Reddy, aged about 36 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.11-18-415, society colony, Kashibugga, Warangal.

¶16

M/s. Janapriya Agro Tech, Represented by its partner, PenthalaKalyan Reddy, R/o H.No.11-18-415, Kashibugga, Warangal Dist.

¶17

B. M/s. Soma Cold Storage Private Limited, Represented by its managing Director, PenthalaKalyan Reddy, H.No.11-25-33, Vasavi colony, Wa ra nga l.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Parties:

¶20

For the Applicant For the Defendants 1to 5,7& B Defendant no.6

¶21

Sri V. Sethu Madhava Rao Sri T. Vijay Kumar Sri Ch. Kishore Kumar

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs. (Rupees Five Crores Twenty Four lakhs Nine hundred Twenty and paise Eighty nlv) i.e., 7 ? llitl

¶24

(OA.No.77 of 2022)

¶25

a) A sum of Rs.4,40,34,369.45ps in account No.0206131O0OO191B with subsequent interest @12.55% (10.55 * 2o/o penal )p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶26

b) A sum of Rs.84,61,551.35ps in account No,02o63o10 ooog277o with interest @ 9.50o/o (7.50 + 2o/o penal) p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶27

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶28

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor Mr. p. Malla Reddy (father of defenda nts 2, 4 & 5 and husband of defendant no.3 and father-in-raw of defendant no.6) availed occ facirity of rs.400.00 rakhs. The defendants 1 to 5 executed demand promissory note, composite hypothecat,on deed, letter of undertaking, letter of guarantee etc. In June, 2020, the defendants 1to 5 availed term loan/ UGECL limit of Rs.80.00 lakhs and executed term loan agreement dated 30.07.2020. Late p. Malla Reddy and defendant no.2 with an intent to secure the repayment of Applicant bank, due from the defendant no.1 deposited title deeds schedule property i.e, Original Regd Sale 29.08.2009 and the same was registered as docq rne{t .qprB59 013 in SRO Warangal. Late p. I Malla Reddy with an intent ure the repayment of Applicant i ....-,^./.

¶29

(OA.No.77 of 2022 )

¶30

bank, due from the defendant no.1 deposited title deeds of item no.2 of OA schedule property i.€, Original Regd Sale deed No.3BB6/2012 dated 07.4.2012 and the same was registered as document no.8304/2013 in SRO Warangal. Defendant no.7 represented by Late p. Maila Reddy with intent to secure the repayment to Applicant bank due from defendant no.1 deposited item no.3 in OA schedule i.e., Original Regd Sale deed no.B3BB/2012 dated 08.11.2012 and the same was registered as document no.9589/2013 in SRO, Warangal. Defendant no.7 represented by Late P. Malla Reddy with intent to secure the repayment to Applicant bank due from defendant no.1 deposited item no.4 & 5 in OA schedule i.e., Original Regd Sale deed no.B3g9/20t2 and B3g7/20t2 dated 08.11 .2012 and the same was registered as document no.8466/2012 and 9631/2013 in SRO, Warangal. Defendant no.B represented by Late P. Malla Reddy and defendant no.2 with intent to secure the repayment to Applicant bank due from defendant no.1 deposited item no.6 in OA schedule i.e., Original Regd Sale deed no.L23B/1993 and 1239/1993 dated04.11.1993 and the same was registered as document no.t052t/2012 in SRO, Warangal. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms oF sa nction, hence t s constrained to classify the o.l account as NPA ff$,^issu tice dated 30.09.2021. Inspite of severa the defendants did not clea r the outsta nd ' Hqnce tnis OA-S.:-:.]f,, -<'3Hi'P"

¶31

(OA.No.77 of 2022)

¶32

Shri T. Vijay Kumar filed vakalath for defendants No.1 to 5, 7 & g but failed to file Written statement. Shri Ch. Kishore filed vakalath for defendant no.6 but failed to file WS.

¶33

Shri K. Surya Prakash, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.31.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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?

¶36

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file 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.A1 to A.31. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence icant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the and costs. *.'

¶37

B, In the result, the &2istHYoillE0 *6 ,^{asu nder:}

¶38

(OA.No.77 of 2022)

¶39

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Appllcant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,24,95,92O.8Ops (Rupees Five Crores Twenty Four lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Nine hundred

¶40

Twenty and paise Eighty only) i.e.,

¶41

a) A sum of Rs.4,40,34,369.45psin account No.020613100001918 with subsequent interest @10.55o/o^p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶42

b) A sum of Rs.84,61,551.35ps in account No.0206301000092770 with interest @ 7.50o/o^p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶43

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

¶44

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^{proceed againstthe person} and properties of defendant No.2 to 5 and^properties of^defendant no.L,7 and B firms towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

t2. The 6ff8\Applica_ to the costs of the OA.
13. Th Affilicant S&ll file a memo within two weeks from the date
*
)k a a urv ,ilttl
of
,i?, -i
\iil-i^-ri .;Pjii
QsW

¶46

(oA.No.77 of 2022 )

¶47

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d day of May, 2024)

¶50

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESID!NG OFFICER

¶51

12 triAy ,m *
*J
,O Sl
o€&=
-x$-.N"'
'iffis#r'

¶52

fr"W Asst. Reqiitrar oart, nvoEnna.ao

Union Bank of India , (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S. Venugopal Cotton Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India , (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) v. M/S. Venugopal Cotton Industries

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Enkay Auto Industry

Smt Shahnaaz Zaidi versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Yadadri Enterprises

Uco Bank versus Smt. Rama Laxmi Patra

Indian Bank versus Ms Indeevar Industries

State Bank of India versus Late Mrs.D Vijaya