Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S De Generic Bio Tech Private Limited

DRT20 Mar 2025OA/9/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 1,45,75,254.24ps along with interest from six respondents, including a company, its directors, and guarantors, noting their default and failure to file written statements or adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Original Application for recovery of Rs. 1,45,75,254.24ps with interest at 12.25% p.a., and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S De Generic Bio Tech… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THISTHE TWENTIETHDAY OF MARCH'2025} PRESENT:^{sH. MMEsHWART<3:Tiri.tT'LLB (Hons )' M A'}

¶2

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATIONNO' 9 OF 2023}

¶3

Between:

¶4

Union^{Bankof India} Jubilee Hills^Branch Plot No.^{226, Road No 17} Jawahar^ColonY .lubilee^Hills Hvderabad-500034' ....ApPlicant. Rep bY its^{Authorised Officer'}

¶5

And

¶6

M/s De Generic^{Bio TechPvt Ltd'} Reo bv its Director sri ntelta sai^{Kumar,PlotNo.4/A} Road No.8,^{Aleap IndustrialEstate} Kukatpally,^{HYderabad-500090}

¶7

Also at:

¶8

H. No. 2-23lBl729lA Plot No.129lA,^SamathaNagar Near MNR^{college,KukatpallY} Hyderabad-500072.

¶9

Mr. Venigalla^Srinivas S/o V. Siva^Prasad Aged about⁴⁷ Years Occ: Business

¶10

D. No.2- 123-Bl129-A Plot No.129lA,^SamathaNagar Near MNR College,^KukatpallY Hyderabad.

¶11

oa.9l2023

¶12

¶13

' y; X:j'i::ll:R:'va Prasad Aged€bout 76 years vrL. Dustness D.No.2_I23_B/129_A gffir.r,;i:*H#ff.

¶14

Mr. Akella Sai Kumar !61r1'o1,li }lni Jl^{- *"} " lf i,'J"llli,ii,_TiE T,;1?. ^ukatpa[y,^{Hyderabad-500072.}

¶15

Akella Ramalakshmi Vo.Late A. Nageswara Rao Aged about 68 years occ: Business, MIGH_ i n, KPHB Cotony, Road No-.i' KUkatpally, Hyderabad_500072.

¶16

Akella^prashanth S/o Late A. Nageswara Rao Aged about 43 years PIi,'Jffii,Tj:T,"19. Kukatpa y, Hyderabad_500072. .,.Defendants. Counsel for Applicants : Mrs. V Dyumani, Defendants 1to 6 : Exparte/No representation. ;; ORDER ::

¶17

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.l ,45 ,7 5,254.24ps from the defendants joinUy and severally with further interesl 612.25o7o per annum from the date of filing of the OA and sale of OA schedule properties.

¶19

oa.9l2023

¶20

The averments defendant^{No'1 of applicant bank is a Company' defendants as per the oA' 2 briefly' and 4 are are thatits} Directors.^{Defendants 3 to 6 are MortgagorsDefendants4 to} O ur. tn"^{legal heirs of Akella NageswaraRao DefendantNo 1} u*,,"0^{Oaa,ot *orkingcapital requirement Defendants 2 and} 4 were^{jointlyand severally executed the loandocumentsin} t".., of^{D.1 company Board resolutiondated 21'03 2016'} Defendants^{3,5 and 6 executed continuing guaranteedated} 16.04.2015^{for Rs.14o lakhsalong with interest/chargesetc'} Defendants^{3 to 6 confirmedcreatlon of mortgage over OA} schedule^{item Nos. 1 and 2 propertiesto secure the repayment} to the applicant^{bankfor the monies due fromdefendantNo'1'} Defendants^{committed defaultin payment of liabilityas per} agreed terms.^{Accordingly,the loan accountwas classifiedas} NPA. As the^{defendants falledto dischargethe liability' the} present OA is filed. Applicant^{bank issueddemand noticedated} 26.O4.2O2L^{recalling the outstanding liability, followed by} possesslon notice dated ll'O3.2022.

¶21

Defendant No.1 and 2 &^{3 were set exparte videdocket orders} dated 02.O2.20244 and^{01.09.2023 respectively,as called} absent and no representation.

¶22

Though defendants 4 to 6^{enteredappearancethroughMr.} Abhay Singh, Advocate, they did not^{choose to file written} statement. Hence, their right of filing^{of WrittenStatement of} has been forfeited for non-representation vlde^docketorder dated 21.03.2024.

¶23

Applicant Bank examined Bala Nagesh, lYanager as^AW-1and marked 9 documents as Ex. A.1 to *. a.O,7-fr/W$

¶24

¶25

oA.^gl2l23

¶26

The contesting defendants rigl evidence forfeited

¶27

vide docket order dated or.of,^"^t_:oou.,ng ""^{thev failed to adduce}

¶28

evidence despite conditionar ".1;11"

¶29

Learned counsel for applicant passed based on records. *n.t^{otu'l' that orders} may be del'endants 4 to 6 right of

¶30

arguments forfeited for ,nuru otiut' beharr. perused,n" ;,;.;;;;"J;:,:"" :::::::"'",,"n on their

¶31

¶32

The point that arises for consideration is;_

¶33

ttyhether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the OA claim against the Defendants 1 to 6 and OA schedule properties?

¶34

As stated supra, defendants 1to 3 remained exparte, whereas defendants 4 to 6 though entered appeaiance did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence 3r advance arguments despite granting sufficient time. Under such circumstances, the evidence of affidavit of AW.1 along witii Exhibits A.1 to A.9 remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that Defendants 1 to 6 are joinHy and severat,y liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future in:erest and costs.

¶35

In the result, the present Original Apllication No.9/2023 is allowed as under:-

¶36

i) the Defendants 1 to 6 aie joinHy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.L AS,7 5,254.:f 4ps atong with interest 6U12o7o per annum s:mple from the date of Application till the date of realization; uMr*c/

¶37

¶38

0A,912023

¶39

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of OA schedule assets and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the sa me for realisation of its debt;

¶40

iii) the Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants 1to 6 for recovery of its dues; and

¶41

vi) the applicant bank is entitled for thb costs.

¶42

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶43

t2. Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on Web Portal.

¶45

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2f day of March, 2025j.

¶46

.$,

¶47

-trl' KOrHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S De Generic Bio Tech Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S De Generic Bio Tech Private Limited

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Rainbow Aquatech Systems

Sushila Devi Sharma versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Vanamaali Infra Private Limited

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/S Coverit Flair

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/S Coverit Enterprises

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Andela Textiles Private Limited