Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Monish Fuel Station

DRT25 Mar 2025OA/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 36,52,182.76. The bank established its claim through witness examination and documentary evidence as the defendants were absent or did not file written statement. Order grants recovery from both movable and mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed the OA. Defendants to pay Rs. 36,52,182.76 with interest; issue recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Monish Fuel Station — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT^HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 25rH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.116 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, (E-Andhra bank) #5-2-29 Sri Siddlinga complex, Main road, Sangareddy - 502 001. Rep by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Monish Fuel Station, Prop : MrsGangulaLavanya, Female, major, 14-BLl60/ t, Plot no.26, Mallikarjunanagar, OppRaghavendra colony bus Stop, Beeramguda, AmeenPur/ Sangareddy - 502 032.

¶10

Mr. Raj Manik Reddy @

¶11

A. Raji Reddy, s/o Jogi Reddy, Male, major, flat no.501, Sukhakartha Residency, Poth reddypa^I ly, Sangareddy^-502 295.^TS Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrala
For the Defendant No.1 Exparte
<br>Defendant no.2 Sri D. Raghavulu
.s '5,,,<br>ff
i; 2 s rirAn zfizs ;" jj
;i,r,+*
oitl.,.,,,:.':'#
\Sifilt-tsr"

¶14

(oA. No.116/2024)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA against Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs'36,52,182.76ps^{(Rupees Thirty Six} Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred^{EightyTwo and paise} Seventy Six only)^{(Rs.29,85,748,L7ps+Rs'6,76,434.59ps)} with interest @ 10.95o/o^p.a with^{monthly rests from 14.03.2024till} the date of realization and in default^{for sale of hypothecated} movables and mortgaged^properties as^{mentionedin the schedule to} oA.

¶17

As per the averments in the^{application, the Applicant Bank states} that defendant No.1 is a^{proprietaryconcern representedby its} proprietrix Mrs. Gangulalavanya and defendant^{no.2 is the guarantor} to the loan availed by defendant no.1^{The defendants availedcash} credit of Rs.15 lakhs for^{working capital and termloan of Rs.35.00} lakhs upon hypothecation of schedule^{mentionedmovables.The} defendants executed composite^{agreement,demandpromissory} note, general form of^guarantee on^{04.01.2019'The defendantno.2} created equitable mortgage of^{schedulementioned property and} ted the title deeds. After availing the^{loan facilities,the} failed to comply the terms of sanction,^{hence the} d\ ,,k pplica nk was constrained to classify the^{accountas NPA and} * + 2 5^r,mg4g5o o; nd notice dated L6.06.2023.^{Inspite of several} ,'4

¶18

(oA.No.116l2o24l

¶19

requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendant no.1 called absent and set exparte on 19.08.2024. Counsel for defendant no.2 filed vakalth but failed to file WS,

¶21

Sri A. Krishna Kumar, Manager of the^{Applicant Bank examined} himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents,^{which are} marked as Ex,A.1 to A.20.

¶22

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant^Bank.

¶23

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

¶24

DefendantNo.l remained exparte. Counsel^{for defendant no.2 filed} vakalath but failed to file WS. 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.20. In view of} the above, I hofd that the Applicant^{Bank has established their claim} the OA against the Defendants and^{hence the ApplicantBank} '7*- 1{^{---"ffP -$ae:-$i} /N q$is enti recover the claim made in the OA with^{future interest} Jlzs^I{AFDMFo='{} !Y.arfl" &.J ,S" .J c^V, It, the present OA is allowed with costs,^{as under:} W-f-#

¶25

¶26

(oA.No.11612024)

¶27

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.36,62,L82.76ps (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty Two and paise Seventy Six only) (Rs.29,85,748.t7ps +

¶28

Rs.6,76,434.59ps) with interest @ 10.95o/o^p.a from 14.03.2024til1 the date of realization.

¶29

The Applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards recovery of its dues.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribedly her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2025)

¶36

,t
i j .r-
i, "; 2 5 r{AR 2$6 :
I t-.i 6,u,5,

¶37

sd/ - (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER lsst^R{Istnrr DR?--r,^{tfl'T)EqC$An.}

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Monish Fuel Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Monish Fuel Station

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Yashoda Krishna Automobiles Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Leela Krishna Automobiles Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Radha Krishna Automobiles Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Sanaa Audio Visual Productions Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. v. Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Lakshmi Enterprises