Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Circuit Computer Services

DRT21 Nov 2024OA/81/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A DT court allowed an Original Application for recovery of a decretal amount of Rs.33,31,803 along with interest. The bank proved loan existence via documents; defendants denied liability but failed to cross-examine witness. The court declared respondents jointly liable and authorized proceeding against hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Orders for payment of Rs.33,31,803 plus 14% p.a. interest from 16.03.2022, entitlement to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties, and issuance of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Circuit Computer Services — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21sr DAy OF NOVEMBER,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.81 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Bakaram branch, 7-4-972/2, Bakaram, M usheerabad, Hyderabad Represented by its Br.Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Circuit Computer Services, Rep by its Proprietor, Plot no.45, Behind HUDA, Maitrivanam, gayatrinagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 38.

¶10

Sri K. Venkat Reddy, s/o Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 47 yrs, occ: business, R/o flat no.105, Sun Valley Apartments, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084.

¶11

Mrs. K. Satyavathi, (Died) w/o Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o D.No.10-1-74, Tallamudunurupadu village, Tadepalligudem municipality West Godavari district.

¶12

Mr. Ch. Shivanaga Prasad, s/o Venkateshwarlu, aged 59 yrs, occ: technician, R/o flat no.501, SVSVJ Mansion, MIG 401-404, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶13

(OA.No.8U2022)

¶14

5.	SmtSubba Lakshmi, W/oKarriVenkatReddy, Agedabout53 years, R/oD.No.10-22-lB/1, Tallamudunurupaduvillage, Tadepalligudem municipality West Godavaridistrict.
6.	SmtVenkatalakshmi, W/oSambhaReddy, Agedabout 51years, R/oD.No.4-3ll,Mallipudi Village,Penumantramandal, West Godavaridist,AP.
7.	SmtKrishnaveni, w/oVenkataKrishnaReddy, agedabout49 yrs, R/o D.No.2-225, Ubalankavillage,Ravula Palemmandal,EastGodavari District,AP.
B.	SmtLakshmi, W/oV. VenkatReddy, Agedabout47yrs, R/oD.No.5-90, Velag aliva rlpalemvillage, Penumatramandal, West Godavaridist,AP.	Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant : Sri N.V. Subba Raju ..'-/ Defendants 1 & 2 : Sri TBB Krishhilrvn6fi6 Defendants No.4 to B : Exparte ORDER ii;^{Lt Nou zull} 1. The Applicant Bank filed the present OA dqains recovery of a total sum of Rs.33,31,803/Lakhs Thirty One thousand Eight hundred and threeonly) with

¶16

(oA.No.81/2022)

¶17

further interest @ l4o/o p.a with monthly rests from16.03.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 availed cash credit of Rs.20.00 lakhs with sub limit of Rs.2.00 lakhs for business and submitted necessary documents. As a security for due repayment, the defendants hypothecated all movable assets more specifically mentioned in Schedule A to OA. Defendant no.2 & 3 deposited original title deeds registered in the office of SRO, Tadepalligudem and created mortgage of schedule mentioned properties. Defendant no.3 died and defendants No.5 to B were added as legal heirs to deceased defendant no.3. The said credit facility was renewed to Rs.25.00 lakhs and a sub-limit of Rs.12,50,000/- on 27.L2.20t3. Subsequently the credit facility was renewed to Rs.30.00 lakhs as a overdraft facility and executed necessary documents.

¶19

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the and failed to keep up the repayment was classified as N PA on 01.03.2021. Inspite : !f9 f,Onml. S?f" ,*. !: by Appticant the defendantshave not [egularized the aqcQUnt, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice daied OZ,O'ilffit,rtut the defendants did not - ,"',..r'l ',t1-t-rt come forward to repay tifr+am5'' The total claim of Applicant

¶20

(oA.No.81/2022)

¶21

against defendants is of Rs.33,31,803/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty One thousand Eight hundred and three only) with further interest @ L4o/o p.a with monthly rests from16.03.2022till realization. Hence the OA.

¶22

The Defendants No.1& 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. Defendants No.4 to B remained exparte. The defendants did not admit the hypothecation of movables and mortgage of properties in favour of Applicant bank. It is denied that the defendants availed with enhancement of credit facilities and also denied execution of documents. Hence prayed for dismissal of oA. Defendant no.2 on beharf of defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 but not filed any documents.

¶23

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶24

Heard the arguments.

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in

¶27

OA against the defenda
/:, s
.
,' ,:+,

¶28

Point No.i):

¶29

(oA.No.81/2022)

¶30

Sri D. Sureshkumar, Asst Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.18 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶31

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.2 examined himserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant No.1 having taken the prea that the appricant bank did not foilow the RBI guiderines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Applicant Bank makes crear that ail the rerevant documents are executed by the defendants No.1& 2 in the normar course of transaction. The defendants No.1& 2 very vaguely contended that particulars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants No.1&2 is not tenabre. Hence the appricant bank is entitred to craim the oA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim dese be allowed against the defendants No.1,2, 4 to B. \ib

¶32

Point No.ii)

¶33

B. In the result, the prese oinpfo$Wu?Efi i' with costs as under:

¶34

(oA.No.81/2022)

¶35

The Defendants No.1,2,4 to B are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.33,31,aO3/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty One thousand Eight hundred and three only) with further interest @ 14olo p.a from f6.03.2o22till the date of realization.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.However the applicant bank is entiUed to proceed only to extent of estate devolved upon legal heirs / defendants No.5 to g from the deceased defendant no.3.

¶38

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

¶39

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate

¶42

order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to corrected, siqncd and pronounced by me in the open
court on ($ zr"
t::"a
sd/-
2{ unv rut
(c. GoPtCHAND)
oFFlcER
TRIE, COP9RESIDING
/( U-.* ffi,/t.,
Ass! Rogrstttt a r/- ^
^D1r.t. N\tnta n n'.j;' ( L )

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Circuit Computer Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Circuit Computer Services

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

State Bank of India versus M/s. Santoshi Mata Auto Services

State Bank of India versus M/s. Dw Upvc Windows

State Bank of India versus M/S. Matha Filling Station

State Bank of India versus Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank