Allowed

Union Bank of India(e-Andhra Bank) v. M/S Gote Consultants

DRT26 Mar 2025OA/280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DR Tribunal allowed the debtor recovery application filed by Union Bank of India against five respondents. The court held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay principal amount with future interest and costs based on unchallenged bank evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 84,98,700.36 with future interest @9.55% p.a., proceed against secured assets and properties, and costs awarded.

Union Bank of India(e-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Gote… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE TWENWSIXTH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 280 OF Z0Z3

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) S R Nagar Branch, SituatedatSRNagar, Hyderabad-502038

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

M/s. Gote Consultants, Rep its Managing Partner - Mr. Sunkara Ramu, S/o. Pentaiah, Major, #8-3-903 /3lA/3/F-E7 Omega Apartments, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500073.

¶10

Mr. Sunkara Ramu, S/o. Pentaiah, Major, #7-t-619/ A24/ L/F301. Srinivasa Colony, Ameerpet, Hydera bad-500038.

¶11

Ms. Sunkara Jaya Meghana D/o Sunkara Ramu #7-L-6L9/ A24/L1F301. Srinivasa Colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500038.

¶12

Mr. Manthena Satya Sri Radha Krishna, S/o. M. Surya Narayana Raju, " /f/fr$26.,

¶13

oa.No.28ol2023

¶14

Major, Partner,^{M/s. Gote Consultants,} #5-7-1/206,^{Hari Hara Puram Colony,} Near DPS School,^{VanasthaliPuram,} Hyderabad-500070.

¶15

Mrs. Sunkara^Anuradha, Wo.^{Sunkara Ramu, Aged 26 Years,} #7 -7-619/ A124/1/F301,^{SrinivasaColony,} Ameerpet, Hydera^{bad - 500038.}

¶16

Counsel for^{the APPlicant} : Mr. Srinivasa^RaoChakrala Counsel for^{Defendants1,2, 3 & 5} : Mr. D. Raghavulu. Defendant No.4 :Exparte.

¶17

-: Q-B-DI-B:-

¶18

The applicant^{filed the presentOriginal Applicationu/s' 19 of the} Recovery of^{Debts and BankruptcyAct, 1993 for recoveryof a} total sum of^{Rs.84,98,700.36 (Rs.61,34.491.14psLoan A/c No'} o52215O1OOOO004,^{Rs.90,017.70ps,Loan A,/c No.0522311-} 00000256,^{Rs.5,62,697.43psLoanA/c. No.052230100116274,} Rs.6,94,084.40ps Loan^{A/c Ac. No.052230100170333and} Rs.10,17,409.69ps Loan^{A"/c. No.O 52230100L76249) fromthe} defendants^jointly and^{severally with futureinterest@9'55o/o} p.a. from 28.12.2022 till the date of^{reallzation along withthe} costs and in default^{for saleof OA schedule assets.}

¶19

The averments of applicant^{bank as} Per^{the OA, briefly, are that} the Defendant No.1 is^{partnership firm represented by its} Managing Partner defendant^{No.2. The Defendant No'3 and the} Defendant No.4 are the^{Partners of the firm. The Defendant} No.3 and Defendant^{No.5 are the guarantors,The Defendant}

¶20

)\lt^,^{,.. ,,} '-"r- 1^"

¶21

OA.No.280/2023

¶22

No.1 availed the Credit Facilities, SOD, Term Loan and WCTL Loan Facilities. The applicant bank issued sanction letter and defendants agreed to the terms and conditions of the sanction and executed necessary loan documents and secured the^loan by way of creating mortgage and executed registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed and deposited Original Sale Deed. Defendants 2 to 5 stood as^{personalguarantors to} the loan availed by 1't defendant. The defendants violated the terms and committed breach of contract. Applicant bank made several requests and demands to^pay the dues and regularize the accounts, but the defendants did not choose to do so. Consequently, the applicant constrained to flle this application.

¶23

The defendants 1 and 2 filed Written Statement and the same has been adopted by defendants 3 and 5. It is denied that the defendants were irregular in repayment of loan instalments. This is evident from the fact that applicant bank renewed the OCC limit upon satisfactory^performance of the defendants. The default, if any, is due to Covid Pandemic situation. Due to delay in sanction of loan amount, defendant firm had to incur huge losses. The OA claim is not correct as the defendants repaid almost all the loan amount except a few instalments. Applicant charged heavy interest and penal interest. Defendants in order to prove their bonafides deposited 300/0 of the dues in compliance of an interim order in SA.89 of 2023 under the SARFAESI Act. Despite requesting time to regularise the loan account, applicant bank proceeded with the present oA.

¶24

¶25

oA.No.280/2023

¶26

Applicant bank filed rejoinder refuting the contentions of defendants of their being regular in payments, inaccuracy in OA claim amount and delay in timely disbursal of loan amount.

¶27

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined Mr. Veeraboina Rahul BK Chakravarthy, Assistant Manager of Applicant Bank, as AW-1 and marked 5g documents through him as Exhibits A-1 to A-S8.

¶28

In order to substantiate their defence, the contesting defendants examined D2 as DW.1 and marked no documents.

¶29

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants prayed that orders may be passed based on records, perused the written arguments filed by the applicant bank and the material brought on record.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank submits that defendants did not deny availment of loans to meet business requirements. Further, defendants have not produced any material evidence in support of their contentions. In the written statement, defendants admitted of default in repayment due to Covid Pandemic. Defendants did not place on record any material to have approached the applicant bank for extension of time to clear the dues. Defendants have not disputed the exhibits A.1 to A.58 relied on by the applicant bank either by bringing on record any contradicting material or cross examining AW.1 to disprove the authenticity of documents retied on by the appticant. Hence, appticant,Zffils entiHed to

-^-'b'\t'

oA.No.280/2023

the OA^{claim basingon the Exhibits A'1 to A'58 marked} through^{evidenceaffidavit of AW'1'}

¶35

9, Now, the^{points that arise for consideration are:-}

¶36

it lAherher the^{Applicant Bankhas proved its claim} against^{the Defendants and the OA schedule assets} as PraYed?

¶37

ii) To what^relieJ?

¶38

Point No.(i):-

¶39

Admittedly,^{defendantscommitted default inrepayment'} Though defendants^{contended that they were regularin} repayment, OA claim amount^{being inaccurate and applicant} delayed in disbursal of^{loan amountaccording to their} requirement, the same are not supported by^{material evidence.} Accordingly, such contentions do not deserve consideration. Further, defendants did not chose to cross-examine AW-1 to disprove the authenticity of documents relied on by the applicant bank or the accuracy of OA claim amount. Under these facts and circumstances, the evidence affidavit of AW-1 coupled with recitals in Exs.A.1 to A.58 remains unchallenged and un-rebutted and accordingly clinches the OA claim against the defendants and in favour of the applicant bank. In view of the above position, I hold that the defendants 1 to 5 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim with future interest and costs.

trfu5""

Point No.(ii):-

OA.No.28Ol2023

In the result, the present Original Application No. 2BO/2023 allowed with costs, as under:-

¶44

the defendants 1 to 5 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a total sum of Rs.84,98,700.36ps comprising the dues outstanding against various loan accounts with future interest @9.55o/o p.a. simple, from the date of Application till the date of realization;

¶45

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage/ hypothecation of assets described in the schedules annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its balance dues;

¶46

iii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realisation of its balance dues; and

¶47

iv) the applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the oA.

¶48

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

¶49

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶50

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Web^portal.

¶51

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th dav of March,2o2s).

¶52

Offirrrn ffts,txeHp#'J

Union Bank of India(e-Andhra Bank) v. M/S Gote Consultants

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India(e-Andhra Bank) v. M/S Gote Consultants

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

Similar cases

Sri Mohan Babu Vuppu versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Tammisetti Subbarao Civil Contractor

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs.Asma Begum

Smt Yalamanchili Vandhana versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Preet Work Constructions

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S M P Enterprises