Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Doddikadi Srinivas

DRT7 Mar 2024OA/87/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan amount totaling Rs. 31,60,664.28 with interest against three defendants. The bank proved its case via examination of an official and documents, and the defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 31,60,664.28 with interest at 10.75% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants' properties.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Doddikadi Srinivas — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.87 ot 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Vikarabad Branch, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, Telangana. Represented by its Senior Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Doddikadi Srinivas (male) S/o D. Basaiah, occ: head constable, Aged about 56 years, 4-6-4I, Old gunj, Vikarabad,

¶9

Vikarabad dist-501 101. TS.

¶10

Mrs. D. Kalavathi, Female, Wo O. Srinivas, Aged about 50 years, Occ: housewife, 4-6-4L, Old gunj, Vikarabad, Vikarabad dist-501 101. TS.

¶11

Mr. J. Mahadev (co-obligant) male, S/o JogiTulasi Ram, Occ: Police Constable, Aged about 48 years, 7-26/C, Old Gunj, Vikarabad, Vikarabad district, TS. Defendants Counsel for the pa For the Applicant . Suresh For the Defendan^; o z ilAR zoz4 sfi rte ,S- .,, , #, -Q.nq#'

¶12

(OA.No.87 of 2023)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,60,664.2gps (Rupees Thirty One lakhs Sixty thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four and paise Twenty eight only) with current and future interest @ 10.75% p'a with monthry rests from 05.02'2023 tilr the date of rearizationand in default for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedure to OA.

¶15

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 along with defendant no,2 who is co_borrower, defendant no.3 as co-obligant avaired housing roan of Rs.25.oo rakhs for construction of house more particurarry described in the schedure to OA. The defendants executed composite agreementand supprement to composite agreement on 10.04.201 7. Thedefendants deposited tifle deeds of Regd Sale deed dated 11.04.2012 vide regd sale deed document no.l7g3/2Ol2for creating equitable mortgage of schedure property' After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 30.06.201g and issued n nti.ac r^^^:!- -- otices. Inspite of se ;v_{a} 'g;5j"S:::n-^{r-il-,' rfl{i{e$} -'^{i\r;q:$noema nds, the derenda nts}

¶16

did not ctear the outstb-r$jing. HJnte tni$fu\ .' r .. ;.^.rl fi; rr.-!^{r/lrARmr *} tt

¶17

Rfu*r-"-'tfl

¶18

(OA.No.87 of 2023)

¶19

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 08.01.2024.

¶20

4' Shri sarfarazrairuddinKazi, seniorManager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

prayed for?

¶25

7' Defendants ca'ed 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.Al to A.12. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶26

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶27

jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank f Rs.31,60,664.28ps (Rupees Thirty One $,"m nd Six Hundred Sixty Four and paise ..-o Xl..-'.,

¶28

+".-,,tq#

¶29

(OA.No.87 of 2023)

¶30

Twenty eight only) with current and future interest @ 10.75o/o p.a from 05.02.2023 tiil the date of realization.

¶31

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged

¶32

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶33

debt due.

¶34

11' the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due.

¶35

The Appricant Bank is entiued to the costs of the oA.

¶36

13' The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶37

L4. Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶38

15' communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

:31'ifitJ?.tll,""t;n ;j,,:#.il:::r?lJili.o,.,".,ed,^{sisned and pronounced} by me in the open

¶40

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

$ 7 t{f,$ zm

¶42

c[:;V:L-
ar"t. a"g{rn '7 'tx
DRT.I. rri.os.t48AD.

¶43

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Doddikadi Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Doddikadi Srinivas

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

State Bank of India versus E. Varaprasad

Canara Bank versus M/S. Gayatri Water Plant

M S Shiridi Sai Mineral Water Plant versus Bank of Baroda

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Vigneshwara Transport

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ravinder Rangu

Vajra Paraboiled Rice Mills Private Limited versus State Bank of India