Allowed

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

DRT26 Mar 2025OA/248/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery against five respondents, directing payment of the principal sum plus interest from June 1, 2024, and authorized proceedings against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 20,31,638/- with interest; applicant permitted to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Lakshmi Enterprises — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 26rH DAy OF MARCH, 2c,25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.248 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Yerrupalem branch, Khammam district, Telangana state - SO7 2Ot. Represented by its Senior Manager

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Enterprises, Rep by its prop. Mr. Vema Rambabu, shop no.49, Vema Kishan Rao complex, Ring Center, Yerrupalem (V & M), Khammam Dist, TS - 507 20t.

¶10

Mr. VemaRambabu, s/o Late VemaVenkateswar Rao,

¶11

aged major, male, occ: business, H.No.3-31, station road, Yerrupalem village, Khammam Dist, TS - 507 2At.

¶12

3.
Mr. VemaVenkatapulla Rao,
s/o Late VemaVenkateswar Rao,
aged major, male, occ: business,
post and village Meenavolu,
Yerrupalemmandal,
4;;ffi;ffi:" :''5
w/o Late Vemavenkateswar Rao, fi.a. 'n' t.",
:
fltfi: T?,"':ll[1":^ii'' o'sine'sl,] 2 o
'l:n" (uLl ,, i
5:)j.lll, slg,tion .93d, ['tV: "l[R 20fr ,$q
.'
I:jlrp:,uT:lrig:, Dist, TS - 507 2Ot. Khammam k:,ir+,Nr ' e,'+ .#,-1
-Y" ri!h:i' .r;/
srmt-ffi

¶13

(O A.No.248/2024J

¶14

Mr. Vema Satish Kumar, s/o Late VemaVenkateswar Rao, aged major, male, occ: business, H.No.3-31, station road, Yerrupalem village, Khammam Dist, TS - 507 20t.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the^pa rties:

For the Applicant

Defendants No.1to 5

Sri V. Raghu

Sri D. Raghavulu

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.20,31,639/_ (Rupees Twenty lakhs thirty One thousand Six Hundred and Thifi Eight only) i.e.,

¶23

a) A sum of Rs.1B,BB,90B/- in OCC loan account with subsequent interest @ 11.90olo p.a with monthly rests from 01.06.2024 ti| the date of realization;

¶24

b) A sum of Rs.,42,729.77ps in term loan account with subsequent interest @ 10.95% p.a with monthly rests from 01.06.2024 till the date of realization;

¶25

and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated and mortgaged properties mentioned in the schedules ',A to D,, to OA.

¶26

the averments in the application. the Applicant Bank efendant No.1 is a^proprietary concern represented | $yffiQfffiant as its proprietor and defendants no.3 to 5 are co_

¶27

vEftr

¶28

(oA.No.2a8l2oza)

¶29

obligants and regar heirs. Defendant no.1 avaired credit facirity of Rs.10.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 10.05.2016 under PradhanaMantri Mudra yojanasishu Scheme. The defendants executed demand promissory note and composite agreement. Defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 hypothecated a, the stocks more particularly mentioned in the schedule A to OA. Late VemaVenkateswara Rao, father of defendant no.2 deposited the originar tite deeds in respect of schedure properties B and D to oA. Defendant no.2 to 5 being the sons and wife and legal heirs of deceased Late vemavenkateswara Rao have succeeded to the estate including schedure D to oA. In consideration of avairing renewar of limit, Defendant no.2 to 5 executed and derivered the retters in respect of schedule B to D properties on 26.0g.201g and extended the deposit of originars of their tifle deeds as coilaterar securities for due repayment of dues of defendant no.1.

¶30

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was crassified as NpA on O7.4.2O2l.Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant no'1 has not regurarized the account, and the Appricant bank issued 16.04.2021 but the deFendants did not come the same. The total claim of Applicant against Rs,20,31,638/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs thirty One and Thifi Eight onty)with subsequent interest

¶31

¶32

(oA. No.24812024)

¶33

@ 11.90olo p.a, and @10.95o/o p.a respectively with monthly rests from01.06.2024 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶34

2' The Defendants No.1 and 2 fired written statement and defendants 3 to 5 adopted the same and denied the averments made in OA. The defendant contended that the Appricant bank has fired the oA is barred by rimitation and denied the hypothecation and creation of mortgage of properties in favour of Applicant Bank. It is further contended that the payments were made by defendants towards the compriance of conditionar orders in sA.No.g1l202r and sA.105/2023 which were duly adjusted to the loan accounts. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶35

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶36

Heard the arguments.

¶37

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶38

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in

¶39

OA against the defendants ?

¶40

what relief ? :r: r'* ., .. ...6 ^^,r 2 6 illR206 * i( ) .. :i

¶41

(oA.No.24812024)

¶42

Point No.i):

¶43

Sri y. SurendranathaReddy, Senior Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Appricant crearry deposed about the liabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.30 exhibited by the Appricant bank crearry estabrish the riabirity of the defendants.

¶44

7, AW,1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.2 examined himserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway herpfur to him. The defendant No.2 having taken the prea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guiderines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace 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 defendant No.2 very vaguely contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant No.1 to 5 are riabre to pay the oA craim. considering ail the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant No'2 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entiled q*,n"^{oA amount from} defendants. Therefore, the oA craim allowed against the defendants No.1 to 5.

¶45

l,t'"''it; w
;i# *
i, ,, 2 6 ilAB 2o6
. ': .:1
!
Ed{
Wm"$

¶46

i'oA.No.24812024)

¶47

Point No.ii)

¶48

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nde r:

¶49

The Defendants No.1 to 5 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2O,31,638/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs thirty One thousand Six Hundrcd and Thifi Eight only) i.e.,

¶50

a) A sum of Rs.1B,BB,908/- in OCC loan account with subsequent interest @ 11.90o/o p.a from 01.06.2024 till the date of realization;

¶51

b) A sum of Rs.1,42,729.77ps in term loan account with subsequent interest @ 10.95olo p.a from O1.06.2024 till the date of rea lization ;

¶52

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule "A to D" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶53

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶54

and properties of defendants towards realization oF the debt owever, the Applicant bank is entitled to^proceed only to the te devolved upon the legal heirs / defendants No. 2 to

¶55

,'j^.5</sup>

¶56

iJ^,fr 5 Late Vem ave n ka teswa ra Rao. ,^26ilA8206

¶57

e,t#$

¶58

(oA. No.248/2024)

¶59