Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Vasilissa Beauty and Nail Salon

DRT18 Feb 2025OA/293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a term loan principal sum of Rs. 28,58,420.68 with interest from proprietors of a beauty salon who remained ex-parte. The Tribunal held the defendants jointly liable and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.28,58,420.68 with interest; Recovery Certificate issued to be issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vasilissa Beauty and Nail Salon — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE18Th DAYOF FEBRUARY, 2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH.^{MMESHWARKOTHE,B'COM.,L.LB. (HONS'), M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO: 293 OF 2024}

¶5

Union Bank^{of India} , Bachupa lly^Branch, Survev No.3&6,^{MLR ComPlex,} Bachu^pally x^{Road, Hyderabad,} Telangana^- 500091. Rep. by its^{AuthorizedOfficer.}

¶6

. . ...Applica^nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.4/s.vasilissa^{Beauty& NailSalon.,} Represented bY^{its Proprietor} lYrs.Samatha^Eega, Office at H.No.1-10-104/57 /2, Allam Thota Bavi,^{NearRK Tower,} Begumpet, AmeerPet,^HYderabad, Telangana State -^500016.

¶9

14 rs. Eega Samatha, D/o.Bharath Kumar A^V, Aged about 40 Years,^{Occ: Business,} H.No.t-70-r0415712, Allam Thota Bavi, Near RK Tower, Begumpet, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Tela ngana State - 500016.

¶10

... Defendants Cou nsel for the Applicant M/s.V.Sethu Madhava Rao^q Y. !^4,, Defendants : ex-parte/ftws./.rvex-parte/ftws./.rv

¶11

: ex-parte/ftws./.rvex-parte/ftws./.rv U/^{\c'^}

oA.NO.293/2024

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.28,58,420.68ps under Term Loan A/c. No. 162016180000010 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @15.80Vo p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application tjll the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶16

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 04.09.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined K.V.Sai pavan, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶18

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets ?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the^{ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the^Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to pay the OA claim to the ApplicaD\Bank with future^interest and costs. ,4Y<.tn 'r't "

¶22

'' -/

¶23

oA.NO.Z93l2024

¶24

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.293/2024is} allowed as under:^-

¶25

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the Applicant^Bank a^{sum of} Rs.28,58,420.68ps under^{Term LoanA/c. No'} 162016180000010 with future^interest @10.45olo^{p.a. simple from the date of} application till the date of^realization;

¶26

ii) the OA claim is secured bY^{way of} hypothecation of assets described^{in the} schedule annexed to the OA^{and the} applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against} the same to realise its debt;

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is also^{entitled to proceed} against the^person and^propertiesof defendants for realization^{of its dues;}

¶28

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶29

B. The Applicant Bank^is directed^{to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt^{of this Order.}

¶30

Issue Recovery Ceftificate^accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned.} (Dlctated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronouncedbymein the open court on} this the 18th Day of^{February, 2025).}

¶32

[Ary"a (M-MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S Vasilissa Beauty and Nail Salon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Vasilissa Beauty and Nail Salon

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

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/S Tribal Mantra India Private Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Budigapaka Sekhar

Sri Narender Reddy Soma versus Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Sri Balaji Polyvision.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Unique Packaging Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S Limra Digital Studio