Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Balaji Steel Industries

DRT2 May 2024OA/96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of an outstanding loan, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's claim for the principal sum, interest, and realization from hypothecated assets against the borrowers and co-obligants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.20,96,408 plus interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendants' properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Balaji Steel Industries — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.95 ot 2O24

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India (E- Andhra Bank) Nampally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Balaji Steel Industries, Prop : MrsBingiJanabai, W/o Bingisudarshan, aged 50 years, 276/277 , Sy.No.166/p, Tata nagar, Mallardevpally,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 005. T.S.

¶11

Also at

¶12

MrsBingiJanabai, # l-4-27 /7 I/ 170, Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad - 500 080.

¶13

Mr. Bingi Naveen Kumar, s/o BingiSudarshan, aged 46 years, # l-4-27 /7 L/ 170, Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad - 500 080.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

'/4
Counsel For the Parties:
,*
For the Applicant Rao Chakrala
For the Defendants 0 ? t'rr,:ry1rt" *

¶16

(OA.No.96 of 2024)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2O,96,4Ogl- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Six thousand Four hundred and eight only) i.e.,

¶19

a) A sum of Rs.19,74,670.05ps in account No.037g3O10OO2089B with interest @11.70olo p.a from 01.01.2024 till the date of realization;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs.1,21,737.38ps in account No.037830100032811 with interest @ 11.70% p.a from Ot.Ot.2O24 till the date of realization;

¶21

and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietrix and defendant no.2 is co-obligant to the loan. The defendants availed credit facilities of Rs.25.00 lakhs on 2g.03.2or7 on hypothecation of plant and machinery as described in the schedule to oA. The defendants executed composite agreement, declaration, CIBIL - CIBIL-guarantor on 30.03.2017. The derendants --r6,Aq'E'*0 agreement-SD19, interest .i^;i:. t:) agreement, Qemand pronflssory acceptance AD-02A, letter of :,0)fin,,n" continuity AP-oe afldzr;lt4J. 4!?tgr# SD-01. After availing the

¶23

(OA.No.96 of 2024)

¶24

loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued overdue notice dated 11.09.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 26.04.2024.

¶26

Shri Aditya Shankar,Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.21.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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?

¶29

DeFendants called 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.A1 to A.21. In view of the abo Applicant Bank has established their claim mrd.q, Applicant Bank"is er the future interebt and

¶30

<9,

¶31

(OA.No.96 of 2024)

¶32

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

¶33

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.20,96,4O8/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Six thousand Four hundred and eight only) i.e., a) A sum of Rs.19,74,670.05ps in account No.037830100020898 with interest @11.70olo p.a from 01.01.2024 till the date of realization;

¶34

b) A sum of Rs.1,21,737.38ps in account No.037830100032811 with interest @ 11.70olo p.a from 01.01.2024 till the date of realization;

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

of the OA.

¶38

(oA.No.96 of 2024)

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of May'2024)

¶43

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

02ilAYwl

¶45

rL:b'a:yt
,;i:;{i;:'

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Balaji Steel Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Balaji Steel 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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Harika Automobiles

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Navjeevan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Smt. Anabham Tejaswi

State Bank of India versus Sri Sonaganti Pavan Kumar

Mr Tenali Ajay Babu versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Mora Venkata Appa Reddy