Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds

DRT16 Jul 2025OA/244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application by Union Bank of India against three respondents for recovery of Rs.1.06 crore principal with interest and future interest, holding defendants jointly and severally liable and entitled to proceed against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,06,40,134.40 with future interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and other properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Sai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No,244 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Mattampalli branch, Suryapet district, Telangana State. Represented by its Senior Br. Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers pesticides And Seeds, Prop: Rathikindisaidulu, Male, aged major, S/o Sri Bikshmaiah, R/o H.No.6-349/F, Mattampaili viilage And mandal, Suryapetdist -508 204.

¶10

M/s. RathikindiSaidulu, Prop: M/s. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers And Pesticides, S/o Sri Bikshmaiah, Aged 48 years, male, R/o H.No.6-349/F, Mattampalli villa ge And mandal, Suryapetdist -508 204.

¶11

3, SmtRathikindiPushpatatha, w/o Sri Rathikindisaidulu, aged 42 yrs, R/o H.No.6-349/F, Mattampaili village And mandal, Suryapetdist -508 204.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

*. oerln(agft ,T6

¶14

Sri P. Balaji Sri B. Sreenivasa Reddy

¶15

(oA.244/20231

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1' The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,O6,4O,134.4Ops (Rupees One crore six Lakhs Forty Thousand one hundred thifi four and

¶18

paise forty only) with future interest @ 12.70olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realizationand in defautt for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedure to oA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor availed cash credit facility for a sum of Rs.90.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 30.10.2017. The said facility was secured by hypothecation of stocks and receivables. The defendant no.2 created security by way of mortgage of schedule mentioned property and deposited the title deeds dated 14.03.2013 registered as document no.1517 of 2013. On renewal of the limits of Rs.90 lakhs on 29.0t.2020, the defendants executed all necessary loan documents i.€., demand promissory note, composite agreement dated 29.01.2020. The defendants also availed a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of outbreak of COVID-19.

¶20

itted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants * the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the tnf,"iUfi"-1!"d tr repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA. 1."|'" l'. , r:'F t.':. r. ,.t" ' WsPVPr-,*;. ,-", 1to2

¶21

loA.244/2023)

¶22

Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Appricant bank issued demandnotice datedL2.t2.2022, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar craim of Appricant against defendants is of the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,O6,4O,l34.40ps (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Forty Thousand One hundred thirty four and paise forty only) with future interest @ 12.700lo p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶23

The Defendants No. 1 &2 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and deposit of tifle deeds in respect of schedure properties. It is contended that the Applicant bank obtained signatures on blank printed documents. It is further contended that the Applicant bank has not filed the statement of account from the date of availment of alleged loans and has no valid evidence in the eye of law. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.3 examined herself as DW.2 and did not file any documents.

¶24

the documents placed on record.

¶25

that arise for conslderation are:

¶26

(oA.244/2023l.

¶27

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶28

ii) To what relief ?

¶29

point No.i):

¶30

6' sri v. Naresh, Branch Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on beharf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.14 exhibited by the Appricant bank crearry estabrish the liability of the defendants.

¶31

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.3 examined herserf as DW.2, her evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendants having taken the plea they did not execute any documents nor deposited the title deeds, failed to place any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as perthe statement of accounts, the defendants No.1 to 3 are liable to

¶32

OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion taken by the defendant is not tenable. Hence the ntitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. * fr6"&h,S tn"j A claim deserves to be allowed against the

(oA.244/20231

Point No.ii)

B. In the result, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶37

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.l,O6,4O,134.4ops (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Forty Thousand One hundred thirty four and paise forty only) with future interest @ 12.70% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶38

9, The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA towards the realization of the debt due.

¶39

The Applicant bank is also entitled 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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 2025)

¶45

d*
dF
1GJUL7I6
(j
. .. /,r- .- r ,r ?.i ./ 1,
St*,,,.16;r.'r
's....- .,..,--l t..-: r.
"r.'_- .

¶46

sd/ (c. GoPtcHAND; /' PREstDtNG oFFtcER ,91 llssl' l:^,- l

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds

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. Sivva Revanth Kumar

Syed Mahmood Mohiuddin versus Union Bank of India

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud versus Canara Bank

T Parthasaradhi versus Canara Bank

Chethi Rajkumar versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dhatukaram Industries