Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Cytomol Labs

DRT10 Jul 2024OA/929/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for the recovery of principal, interest, and costs from three defaulting individuals/entities jointly and severally liable. The court passed a recovery certificate based on ex-parte evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 32,26,063/- with interest; OA claim secured by mortgage; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Cytomol Labs — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I] AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE loth DAY OF ]ULY, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), PI.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 929 OF 2023

¶6

UNION BANK OF INDIA Gunrock Enclave, Plot No.220, Sikh Road, Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500009. Rep. by its Chief l,4anager.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s.Cytomol Labs, Rep by its Partners, H. No.1- 1-534, Ground Floor, Opposite Golconda Chowrastha, Hyderabad - 500080, Telangana State.

¶10

Sri. K.Ramesh Chandra s/o. Late sudhakar, Aged about 46 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.1- 1-385/37, Gandhi Nagar, P & T Colony, Hyderabad-500080, T.S.

¶11

Smt.N'l.L.N.Deepika, W/o.Sri K.Ramesh Chandra, Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.1- 1-398/2, Gand hi Nagar, Hyderabad - 500080, T.S.

¶12

... Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.Sirpa Ashok Kumar Defendants I exparted$.a^

oA.NO,929/2023

::^qLLEB::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.32,26,063/- i.e., a sum of Rs.15,86,596/- under Term Loan I with future monthly interest @ 13.25%^{p.a., a sum} of Rs.2,2O,5621- under Term Loan Ii with future^monthly interest @ 9.5Oo/o p.a., a sum of Rs.12,08,466l- under Term Loan III with future monthly interest @ 73o/o^p.a. and a sum of Rs.2,70,439/- under Term Loan IV with future monthly^interest @ 9.50o/o^{p.a., from the defendantsjointly and severallyfrom} 24.77.2023 tlll the date of realization alonq with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule^properties.

¶18

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set ex-parte on 06.02.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Appllcant Bank examined Palyam Satish Kumar, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 66 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.66.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties? /Ay<^.r:", [/ ''q"

¶23

oA.NO.929/2023

¶24

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.66 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest a nd costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.929l2023 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.32,26,063/- with future interest @9.8570 p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶30

oA.NO.929/2023

¶31

¶32

The Applicant Bank is directed to^{file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶33

q Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order^{to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th Day of July, 2024).

¶35

AR KOTHE) DING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S Cytomol Labs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Cytomol Labs

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

Similar cases

Jeevankiran versus South Indian Bank

Ms Puja Mobiles versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Nayana Enterprises

Gurpreet Kaur versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Prince Bangle Supplier

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Balaji Digitals