Allowed

Union Bank of India v. v. S. Constructions and Developers

DRT26 Mar 2024OA/77/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated upon an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery and sale of mortgaged properties. The court held the claim established, ruling the bank entitled to significant sum, interest from 2022, and attachment of properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 2,56,52,439.59 with future interest from 23.06.2022; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Union Bank of India versus v. S. Constructions and Developers — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26THDAY OF MARCH'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.77 of 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Jagitial branch,

¶6

Jagitial district and Mandal, Telangana State,

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

V.S. Constructions and Developers, Represented by VanamalaSudhakar Managing partner, S/o Bheemaiah, Male, aged 66 years, occ: business, H.No.6-6-203,^padmanagar, Jagitial - 505 327.

¶11

Mr. VanamalaSudhakar, Managing partner of V.S. Constructions And Developers, S/o Bheemaiah, Male, aged 66 years, occ: business, H.No.6-6-203,^padmanagar, Jagitial - 505 327.

¶12

Mrs. VanamalaBhagyaLaxmi, w/o Sudhakar, partner of V.S. Constructions and Developers, female, aged 56 years, occ: business, H.No.6-6-203, Padmanagar, Jagitial - 505 327.

¶13

Mr. A. Ramanaiah, s/o Venkataiah, partner of V.S. Constructions and Developers, Male, aged 60 years, occ: business, H.No.2-3-19l1, Market road,

¶14

,{e
k
26rilR2m

¶15

(OA.No.77 of 2023)

¶16

Jagitial town and district.

¶17

tr Mr. Macha Ramesh, s/o Buchanna (Security owner) male, aged 52 years, occ: business, H.No.6-6-138, Jagitial town and dist.

¶18

Mr. KasturiRadhaKishan, s/o LaxmiKantham (security owner) male, aged 69 years, occ: business, H. No.6-6- 1 38, Vidyanagar, lagitial town and district.

¶19

Mr. Motala Krishna, s/o Sailu (Security owner) male, aged 52 years, occ: business, H. No. 7-4-265, vidyanagar, Jagitial town and district.

¶20

B. Boga Sathya Narayana, s/o Raja Narsu (security owner) male, aged 52 years, occ: business, H.No.6-6-181, Jagitial town and dist.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the Parties:

¶23

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri B. Praveen Kumar

Exparte

ORDER

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,56,52,43g.59ps (Rupees Two crores Fifty six Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand four hundred and

¶29

Thirty Eight and pa ly) with future interest @ 24o/o p.a with m .2022 fll the date of *

¶30

(OA.No.77 of 2023)

¶31

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

¶32

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant availed credit facility of SOD term loan of Rs.1,46,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 01.11.201g. Defendants 2 to 4 are partners and stood as guarantors and created charge on securityvide MOD. The defendants mortgaged the house and residentiar frats which are more fuily described in the schedure to oA. The defendants executed demand promissory note, composite agreement, indenture of mortgage dated 11.09.2018. The defendants No.5 to B created charge on their properties and executed mortgage being the security owners. The defendants executed composite agreement, demand promissory note, undertaking and retter of consent dated 14.10.201g. Defendants 5 to B stood as guarantors and created charge of properties more fury described in the schedure to oA. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued notices. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear nding. Hence this OA.

¶33

"&<br>; z6ilrRztrr ;
! l*. -Pf
#,,,46y7
kdrffi4

¶34

(OA.No.77 of 2023)

¶35

Defendants No.1 to 6 called absent and set exparte on 09.06.2024 and defendants 7 and B were called absent and set exparte on

¶36

22.03.2024.

¶37

Sri Y. Shankaraiah, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶38

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

¶39

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶40

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶41

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶42

prayed for?

¶43

7' Defendants cared absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.1g. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is enti*ed to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶44

o In the result, the
costs, as u nder:
2 6 il/,n IMl
r#

¶45

(OA.No.77 of 2023)

¶46

9' The Defendants are jointry and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,56,52,439.59ps (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Six Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand four hundred and Thirty Eight and paise Fifty Nine only) with future interest @ 24o/o p.a from 23.06.2022 fll the date of realization;

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

(Dictated to the P.A., transcrib€d by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of Match, 2024)

¶54

74<br>l*
: zsilrRmr
Jh.
!.6
'..1 - .{-
f'&tt'#

¶55

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER onr.r sm!, iirra.

Union Bank of India v. v. S. Constructions and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. v. S. Constructions and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Meera Thakur versus Central Bank of India

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Kunda Transformers Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohd Abdul Razzak Quadri

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Classic Alluminium Profile Industry

Indian Bank versus Mr. Konkati Ramakrishna

State Bank of India versus M/S. Akhila Gardens