Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Nissi Power Projects Private Limited

DRT21 Mar 2025OA/264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the OA filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan amount. Finding the bank had established its claim, the court held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,95,47,283.81 with interest; recovery certificate issued; mortgage properties proceeded against.

Union Bank of India versus Nissi Power Projects Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 21sr DAy OF MARCH, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.264 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Branch office at H. No, 10-3-150/151, Ground floor, Malani Excel, Behind St. -lohn's Church, Near Ratnadeep Super Market, East Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Nissi Power Projects (P) Ltd, Represented by Directors H.No.B-2-685/P1, 8-2-685 /P6/ t & B-685/P6, 3'd floor, Road no.L2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

¶9

M r. Chilakama rriKrishna macha ryul u s/o Ch. Krishnamacharyulu, 7 -82, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad -500 060.

¶10

3, Ms. Matta MadhaviLatha, H. No. 6-96, Seetharampuram, Jayayyapeta, Krishna dist, AP.

¶11

Mr. Thati Satish Kumar, s/o ThatiYadagiri, l-7 -27/2, street no.B, Habsiguda, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶12

Mr. UpputhollaKondal Rao, S/o U. Ankalu, H.No.B-2-686/B/C/1, Road no.L2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

¶13

2 1 HIR 2025
br*"*d

¶14

(oA.No.264l2O2a)

¶15

Mrs. UpputhollaRamadevi, w/o UpputhollaKondal Rao, H. No.B-2-686 /B/C/1, Road no.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - S00 034.

¶16

Mr. UpputhollaBhargav. s/o U. VenkataMalleswara Rao, H.no.6-1 125, Vignannagar, Jaggayyapet, Krishna dist, Ap.

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶19

Sri K. Lakshmi Narayana Ex pa rte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants For recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,95,47,2g3.g1ps (Rupees Two crores Ninety Five Lakhs Forty seven Thousand Two hundred Eighty Three and paise Eighty one only) with interest @ 13.30% p'a (11.30% * 20/o penar interest) with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm by its Directors defendants No.2 to 7 availed secu Rs.4.00 crores u nder

¶23

CVPOD vide 14.06.2* . The defendants

¶24

accepted the rerms a r.iu^rconoft idnSgqA6". Demand promissory -.rr.{v ,

¶25

.. _..1^. :.

¶26

(oA. No.2641202a)

¶27

note dated 15.06.2017, common deed of hypothecation of movables, letter of undertaking, guarantee agreement and letter of continuity etc. The defendants deposited the tiile deeds and created equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned properties in favour of Applicant Bank. The CVPOD facility was restructured as WCTL of Rs.3.00 crores, CVPOD of Rs.1.00 crore, FITL-I| of Rs.34.00 lakhs totaling a sum of Rs.4,34,00,000/-. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 02.04.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶28

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 02.01.2025.

¶29

Sri G. Raj Kiran Kumar,BranchManager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.53.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

The point that arise for consideration is wh6ther the Applicant Bank is
entitled for the clai OA against the Defendants as
prayed for?
/x--'-'ffi

,rF g?
:; ?1lir$zffi
'i
"'iq,&bd

¶32

(oA.No.26412024)

¶33

Defendants remained exparte. 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.21. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶34

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶35

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,95,47,283.81ps (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Two hundred Eighty Three and paise Eighty one only) with interest @ 11.30o/o p.afrom date of application till the date of realization.

¶36

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

¶37

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and properties of defendants No.2 to z anO properties of defendant no.1 the debt due.

¶38

costs of the OA. l.^.r

¶39

,Et- -

¶40

(oA.No.264 /2024lr

¶41

12, The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶42

of receipt of order.

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21't day of March, 2025)

¶46

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

ffi<br>; '.t'i * Zt nrn2o6 :,
w

¶48

RUE"GOP-
S.Aq7{:t"
lltst.6trf:;
,\F? r ,-r\7nF?I8/:t0,

Union Bank of India v. Nissi Power Projects Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Nissi Power Projects Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Panipat Jalandhar Nh Tollways Private Limited

Ms Varalakshmi Seed Processing Unit versus Bank of Baroda

Sathya Narayana Gande versus Irep Credit Capital Private Limited Rep by its Authorized Officer

M/s Sls Power Corporation ltd., versus M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Siri Ayyappa Fertilizers

State Bank of India versus Sri Bonthu Ravinder Reddy