Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Krupa Fly Bricks Industries

DRT7 Mar 2025OA/310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal entertained an Originating Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues. After examining documents and stating defendants called absent, the Tribunal found claim established. It allowed the OA with costs, declaring respondents jointly and severally liable to pay principal amounts with interest and permitting action against hypothecated/mortgaged propert

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.67.26 Lakhs plus future interest; bank entitled to proceed against properties and issue recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Krupa Fly Bricks Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE TrHDAy oF MARC,H, 2o2s

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.31O of 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Chityala Branch, tt-70/4, Main road, Chityala, Jayashankar Bhupalapally, Telangana - 506 356. Rep by its Senior Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Krupa Fly Bricks Industries, A proprietary concern,

¶9

Represented by its Prop. Mrs. Nagavath Dayamni, office at survey no.123/8, ChityalSivar, Chityal village and

¶10

Mandal, Jayashankar district.

¶11

Mrs. NagavathDayamni,

¶12

w/o Raju Nayak, aged about 33 years,

¶13

occ: business, female, R/o 21-10-65/1, Bhupalapally, Jayashankar, Bhupalapally district.

¶14

Mr. Nagavath Raju,

¶15

s/o NagavathDhadunayak,

¶16

aged about 36 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.No.2t-tj-G1/ t, Bhupalapa lly, Jayashankar, Bhupalapally district.

¶17

Mr. Kommu Narayana, s/o Bhaskar Rao, aged major,

¶18

occ: business, male,

¶19

H. No. 2 1 - 10-65 / 2, Bhupala pat ly, Jayashankar, Bhupalapally dist.

¶20

t:'
,4"
,) | .r..,

¶21

(oA. No.310/2023 )

¶22

KokkulaSadanandam, w/o Sri K. Kanakaiah, aged major, occ: business, male, H.No.3-140/5, bear veterinary hospital, Chityal, Warangal district.

¶23

Defendants

¶24

Counsel for the Pa rties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri V. SethuMadhava

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.67,26,O6t.24ps (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Sixty One and paise Twenty four only) i.e.,

¶31

a) A sum of Rs.2,24,264.80ps under term loan account from defendants No.2,3 & 5 with subsequent interest @ 13.05o/o^p.a (11.05o/o -t 2^o/o penal interest) with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶32

b) A sum of Rs.57,36,333/- under housing loan accountfrom defendants 2 & 3 with interest @ 10.650lo^{p.a (8.650/o} +^2o/o penal) with monthly rests from date of application till the date

¶33

term loan account from 9.50o/o p.a^(7.50o/o + 2o/o

¶34

0 7^{urF Tr(}

¶35

a .._ / .-.}zrz r ro(rro4ri.',1 \1 ^!,FRY

¶36

(oA. No.310/2023)

¶37

penal) with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶38

d) A sum of Rs.3,03,179.27ps under term loan UGECL account from defendants 1,2 & 4 with interest @ 13.25olo p.a (LL.25o/o + 2o/o penal) with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶39

and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedules "A & B" to OA.

¶40

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a Proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor the defendant no.2, defendant no.3 is the husband of defendant no.2 and defendants 3 to 5 stood as guarantors to the loan availed by defendant no.1. The defendants 2,3 & 5 availed term loan RTO (small) limit of Rs.7,50,000/- on 07.06.20t7 and executed composite agreement. On 02.08.2017, the defendant no.2 availed housing loan of Rs.50.00 lakhs for the purpose of construction of house in item no.1 of B schedule to OA. Defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.11.00

¶41

item no.1\lof B schedule property and original regd gift deed 0 / urq 2[m "]! no.4203 9 dated 15.07.2019. After availing the loan facilities, failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the

¶42

(oA.No.31012023lr

¶43

applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 14.01.2023 and issued demand notice dated 19.01.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶44

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 28.03.2024.

¶45

4, Sri Ankit Kumar Varma, Sr. Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21.

¶46

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶47

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶48

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 clalm made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank

¶49

.te recover the claim made in the OA with future interest
t"/' .lU't-' ^.,;A ,.. - -
fl,,#'H*.s;;'i')'i'.
'*f'"'"ffi o.;r<br>- !r\
, 0 7 r,tAR 7025 j,l
4

¶50

w;p

¶51

(oA. No.310/2023)

¶52

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

¶53

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of ofRs,67,26,061.24ps (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Sixty One and paise Twenty four only) i.e.,

¶54

a) A sum of Rs.2,24,264.80ps under term loan account from defendants No.2,3 & 5 with subsequent interest @ 11.050/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶55

b) A sum of Rs.57,36,333/- under housing loan account from defendants 2 & 3 with interest @ 8.650lo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶56

c) A sum of Rs.4,62,284.17ps under term loan account from defendants L,2 & 4 with interest @ 7.50o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶57

d) A sum of Rs.3,03,179.27ps under term loan UGECL account from defendants 1,2 & 4 with interest @ 11.25olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶58

cant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶59

ffi tS.'i:, d$nd mot$ped properties as described in schedule "A &8" to OA

¶60

0 / ppygos reo tion of the debt due.

¶61

Q
6 Fr"
',il''.ornl*.9l

¶62

(OA. No.310/2023 )

¶63

The Applicant Bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person

¶64

and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

of receipt of order.

¶68

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶69

Communicate a copy of the order to the pa rties concerned. (Drctated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of March, 2025)

¶70

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶71

,.{'' ,t.
,ri.*b
0 7 ttAfl 2$25 ,+:
.i$;rf#

¶72

dt"w

¶73

crit-.r,^H-vpE3,{BlD.

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Krupa Fly Bricks Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Krupa Fly Bricks Industries

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

N v Subba Rao versus State Bank of India

Ms Sona Collections Rep Neeraja versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sree Medical and General Stores

State Bank of India versus Smt. Sapavat Deepa

Ms Bhavani Restaurant and Bar versus Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Hanuman Steel Traders