Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Cherith Nehan

DRT26 May 2025OA/109/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.109 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Union Bank of India against a proprietorship firm and five guarantors for recovery of Rs. 2.58 Crores along with interest and costs, holding the bank's claim established.

What did the court decide?

Applicants granted recovery of Rs. 2,58,67,836.92 with 13.55% interest, costs, and right to attach hypothecated/mortgaged and personal properties for realization.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Cherith Nehan — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.1O9 of 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Branch office at BSC Bus station complex, Khammam - 507 002. Represented by its authorized officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. CherithNehan& others Represented by its Proprietor, DudipallaMeena, W/o Srinivas, Office at Sy.No.14lAA/t & t2/AAl4, Koyachalaka village, Raghunadhapalemmandal, Khammam - 507 002.

¶10

Also at:

¶11

R/o H.No. 1-34, Kotapadu, Chimmapudi Khammam- 507 t82.

¶12

Mrs. DudipallaMeena, w/o Srinivas, aged about 30^years, occ: business, fema le, R/o H.No. 1-34, Kotapadu, Chimmapudi Khammam- 507^L82.

¶13

Also at: Office at t2/AA/4, Koya Ragh pale and Kha -50 2. ;^z6irrm ;

¶14

(OA. No.109/2025)

¶15

DudipallaBabu, s/o D. Appaiah, aged about 68 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.No.4-4, Kotapadu, Chimmapudi Khammam- 507 lB2.

¶16

DudipallaVeera Krishna, s/o D, Babu, aged about 38 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.No. 1-3311, Kotapadu, Chimmapudi Khammam- 507 tB2.

¶17

Kommuri Rama Krish na, s/o Sheshagiri Rao, aged about 43 years, occ: business, Male, H.No.B-2-270/ t, Balajinagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam - 507 002.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Parties:

¶20

For the Applicant

¶21

For the Defendants

¶22

SmtTa rang iniPisipati

¶23

Ex pa rte

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,58,67,836.92ps^(Rupees Two

¶26

Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred

¶27

Thirty Six and paise Ninety two only) with interest @^13.55olo

¶28

p.a with monthly rests from 05.03.2025 till the date of realization

¶29

and in of hypothecated movables and mortgaged the schedule to OA.

¶30

t, lP
j 26flAyms *
rXr ?
I -r,, - ,r}
W'

¶31

(oA. No.109/202s)

¶32

As per the averments in the apprication, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm represented by defendant no.2 and defendants no.3 to 5 stood as guarantors availed cash credit facility of Rs.250.00 lakhs on L6.1t.2023. The loan facility was secured by hypothecation of machinery, prant, vehicre and capital goods, more fully described in the schedule to OA. Defendants No.3 to 5 executed deed of guarantee dated 18'11'2023 and the defendants executed demand promissory note, letter of continuity, interest agreement etc. Defendant no.3 mortgaged the schedule mentioned property and deposited the tiue deeds. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NpA on l2.ol.zo25 and issued recall notice dated 01.03.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶33

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 14.05.2025.

¶34

Sri B. Ashok, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself AS AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked a5

¶35

Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶36

the Applicant Bank. ?8$#2.W

¶37

(oA. No.109/202s)

¶38

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?

¶39

Defendants remained 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.15. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs,

¶40

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

¶41

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs,2,5g,67,g36.92ps (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Six and paise Ninety two onty) with interest @ 13.55olo p.a from 05.03.2025 till the date of realization.

¶42

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to

¶43

OA of the debt due;

¶44

26ftffirfls

¶45

(oA.No.109/202s)

¶46

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant

¶47

no.1 firm towards rea lization of the debt due.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A,, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26!h day of May, 2025)

sd/-

(G. coPtcHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

2 6iltrm

r rrUE GOP
.a.{*-ai

DRT.I, HVDSRAI3AD.

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Cherith Nehan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Cherith Nehan

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

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another versus State Bank of India

Syed Nasir Hussain And another versus State Bank of India

Vinayaka Raju versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Siddhi Garments

State Bank of India versus Sri. Nayab Hidayathulla

Sri Srinivas Pamba versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited