Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vahahath Agencies

DRT24 Apr 2025OA/139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan amount from proprietary concern and guarantors. The bank is directed to realize the debt from the mortgaged property and other properties of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the total sum with interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and other respondent properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vahahath Agencies — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24rH DAy OF ApRrL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.139 ol 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Pitlam branch, Kamareddy - 503 185. Rep by its Senior Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Vajahath Agencies Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Meer Vajahth Ali, 9-96/BA, Edgha road, Pitlam, Kamareddy - 503 310.

¶9

Mr. Meer Vajahth Ali, Near Bright school, Edgah road, Pitlam (V & M), Kamareddydist TS - 503 310

¶10

Mrs. RajiyaSulthana, w/o Late MR Meer Ayub Ali, near bright school, Edgah road, Pitlam (V& M), Kamareddy dist- 503 310. Defenda nts

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For the Applicant Sri Shinde Mohan For the Defendan Sri C.V. Srinath x,^{24t,lfr)w *} ko'-W

¶13

(oA. No.139/2024)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,O3ro9,4g7.g3ps (Rupees One crore Three Lakhs Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighty seven and paise Eighty three only) i.e.,

¶16

A) a sum of Rs.92,57,246/- with subsequent interest @ 10.80% p.aprus 20/o penar interest with monthry rests from 1g.01.2024 tiil the date of realization;

¶17

B) a sum of L0,52,24L.83ps with subsequent interest @ 11.05% p.a plus 2o/o penal interest with monthly rests from t9.01.2024 till the date of realization;

¶18

and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 asproprietor and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor availed business loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs and executed necessary documents in favour of Appricant bank. To secure due repayment of loan, the defendant no.3 created equitabre mortgage of schedure property an original sale deed no.315/2000 dated

¶20

08.02. was enhanced to Rs.79 lakhs and a lso 00 lakhs on 17.09.202t. After *

¶21

(OA.No.139/2024)

¶22

availing the loan facirities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 25.I0.2022 and issued notices. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants counsel filed vakalath but not filed written statement.

¶24

Sri Rajesh S. Sahoo, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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?

¶27

Defendants counsel 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.16. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants an nce the Applicani Bank is entitled to recover the

¶28

cla im re interest and costs. ?4

¶29

(OA. No.139/2024)

¶30

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.l,O3,O9,4g7.g3ps (Rupees One Crore Three Lakhs Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Seven and paise Eighty three onty) i.e.,

¶31

a) a sum of Rs.92,57,246/- with subsequent interest @ 10.g0% p.a from t9.07.2024 till the date of realization;

¶32

b) a sum of l0,S2,24t.B3ps with subsequent interest @ 11.05% p.a from t9.01.2024 till the date of realization;

¶33

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due;

¶34

The Appricant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2& 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Drctated to rhe P A., transc.bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thrs the 24th^r'--. ^0fl1, 2025)

¶40

n?n ?w *

¶41

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

FAr..l, r, y:!€ri.,i 3_11r.1.

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vahahath Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vahahath Agencies

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Unnati Seeds

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sri. Haligi Ramesh

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Mahakali Motors

State Bank of India versus Salla Ram Reddy

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Genex Tubing Solutions

State Bank of India versus Kannuri Kanaka Durga Prasad