Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Krishna Madhura Cotton Traders

DRT17 Oct 2024OA/97/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's claim for recovery of a defaulted loan amount of approximately Rs. 93.48 lakhs, with interest and costs, against the partnership firm and its guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Respondents declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 93,48,479/- with interest @ 9.55% p.a.; power to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Krishna Madhura Cotton Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.97 of 2024

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India, KMC Branch, Warangal district, Telangana State. Represented by its Authorised signatory/ Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1.	M/s.Krishna Madhura Cotton Traders, RepresentedbyitsPartners, R/o H.No.4-6312,Repaka, RegondaJayashankar Bhupalapally-506348.
2.	Mr. BukkaRavi, s/oYakaiah, aged60^years, male,occ:business, R/oH.No.16-r-r44/2/t, Jammikunta, Karimnagardist.
	Ms.BukkaJyothi, D/o Kumaraswamy,aged27 years, Female,occ:business, R/oH.No.23-6-L2s/9/2, Durga Devicolony,Shayampet, Warangal.
4.	Mr. GajaRamanna, s/oChandraiah,aged52 male,occ:business, years, R/oH.No.4-6312,Repaka, RegondaJayashankar Bhupalapally-506348. efendants Zs-^-ffi rtP&b :^lIocl,o2t; R.br**ey

¶10

(oA.No.97 /2024)

¶11

Counsel for the Pa rties: For the Applicant Sri Momin Mohammed Rafiq For the Defendants Exparte

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA against Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.93,48,479l-^{(RupeesNinety Three} Lakhs Forty Eight thousand^{Four hundred and Seventy Nine}

¶14

only) with subsequent interest @^{9.55o/o p.a with monthlyrests} along with^penal interest @^{2olo p.a from date of applicationtill the} date of realization and in default^{for sale of hypothecatedand} mortgaged properties^{as describedin the schedules"A to D"to} oA.

¶15

As per the averments^{in the application, the Applicant Bankstates} that defendant^{No.1 is partnershipfirm representedby its partners} defendants no. 2 to^{4 who stoodas guarantors to the defendant} no.1 availed UGECL^{limit of Rs.13,90,000} l-^{on 23'lL'2020'To} secure due repayment^{of loan the defendants executedletter of lien,} term loan agreement,^{interest agreement, letter of guaranteeetc'} Defendant no.2 created^{equitable mortgageover the immovable} le B to OA and dePosited property more fullY described .2018. Defendant the original sale^deedno schedule by deposit 1 7 0[T^7r}21

¶16

(OA.No.97l2024)

¶17

of Original gift deed no.2414l2Ol7 dated 17.04.2017 and^also created equitable mortgage of schedule D^property by^depositof original gift deed no.256l/2017 dated 24.04.2Ot7^{in favour of} Applicant Bank. Further the defendants availed^GCLEI of^Rs.7.00 lakhs on 31.L2.2021 and executed demand^{promissorynote, letter of} lien, letter of continuity, hypothecation agreement^{and general term} loan agreement dated 3t.12.2021. Subsequently^{the applicantbank} renewed SOD facility of^{Rs.70.00 lakhs and executedall necessary} documents. After availing^{the loan facilities,the defendantsfailed} to comply the terms of sanction,^{hence the applicant bank was} constrained to classify the account^{as NPA and issued demand} notice dated 31.08.2023 and^{possession noticedaled t2.0L.2024'} Inspite of several requests and^{demands, the defendantsdid not} clear the outstanding.^{Hence this OA'}

¶18

Defendants No.1to^{4 called absentand set exparte on lt'07'2024'}

¶19

Sri Manish Kumar^{Bhumarkar, Manager of the Applicant Bank} examined himself^{as AW.1and exhibited relevantdocuments, which} are marked as^{Ex.A'1 to A.30.}

¶20

Heard the^{Ld. Counselfor the}

¶21

(OA.No.9712024)

¶22

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant^{Bank is} entitled for the claim made in the OA against the^Defendantsas prayed for?

¶23

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.A1to A.30. In} view of the above, I hold that the^{Applicant Bank has established} their claim made in the OA^{against the Defendantsand hence the} Applicant Bank is entitled^{to recover the claim madein the OA with} future interest and^costs.

¶24

B. In the result,^{the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:} The Defendants^{are jointly and severallyliable to pay to the} Applicant Bank a^{total sum ofRs'93,48,479l-(RupeesNinety} Three Lakhs^{Forty Eight thousand Four hundred and Seventy} Nine only)^{with subsequentinterest @ 9'55o/o P'a from date of} applicationtill^{the date of realization;}

¶25

q The Applicant bank^{is entitledtoproceedagainst the hYPothecated} in schedules^{"A to D" to OA} and mortgagedProPerties towards realization^ot 3{1gqd#

¶26

ij *
r.r d
tt%.d

¶27

(oA.No.9712024)

¶28

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of Oc|,2024)

¶34

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

h""<br>170[T
i dL
-"9.S/
WaS-d'

¶37

TBUE^coPY

¶38

1( LL-*--^L--,, ',#;il;:';f{"' t +f'' f>1"

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Krishna Madhura Cotton Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Krishna Madhura Cotton Traders

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr, Kalva Annapurna

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Chedupally Ailaiah

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Cold Care Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Masani Reddy Poultry Farms versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Karvy Data Management Services Limited

State Bank of India versus Vaishnavi Enterprises