Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Stephen Lamination Plant

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank's original application for recovery of Rs.39.73 lakhs with interest, holding the defendants jointly liable after finding their defence of payment and limitation untenable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.39,73,214/- with interest, less Rs.7,60,000/- paid; permission to proceed against mortgaged property and persons/properties of defendants.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Stephen Lamination Plant — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.3l6 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Chikkadpally branch, H. No.1- 1-230/ 11,

¶7

Chikkadpally main road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 5OO O2O. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Stephen Lamination Plant,

¶11

P.No.2B, Jeedimetla, IDA,

¶12

Quthubullapur,^Medchal -^Malkajgiri Telangana - 500 055. Represented by Proprietor

¶13

Mrs. BalaSailaja.

¶14

Mrs. BalaSailaja, w/o Mr. Michal Bala,

¶15

aged 45 years, occ: business, female, H. No.B-2-613/45, road no.11, Uday Nagar, banjara hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 034.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant Defendants,x?-ilj} @Z

¶19

Sri D. S. Pavan Kumar

Sri B. Koteswara Rao

(oA.3L6/2023r.

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,73,2L4l- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Seventy Three thousand Two hundred and Fourteen only) with current and future interest @ 12.05o/o p.awith monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA,

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is Proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor / defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.50.00 lakhs and executed demand promissory note, letter of guarantee, letter of undertaking etc. The defendants created equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned property on 09.10.2020 and deposited the title deeds vide document no.384/2021 dated 12.01.202t in favour of Applicant bank.

¶25

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 classified as NpA on28.06.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued ed01.07.2023, but the defendants did not come repa same. The total claim of Applicant against depnlaggr p5of 9,73t2141- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs

¶26

(oA.316/2023)

¶27

Seventy Three thousand Two hundred and Fourteen only) with current and future interest @ 12.05o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶28

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted that the Applicant bank issued sale notice dated 10.11.2023 and consequential possession notice dated 15.11.2023. Challenging the said sale notice, the defendants filed SA.No.43112023, wherein this Tribunal granted stay directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- in two installments, In compliance of the interim orders, the respondents/ defendants paid Rs.7,60,000/-. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined herself as DW.1 and filed documents which is exhibited as Ex.B.1 and 8.2,

¶29

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Heard the arguments.

¶31

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:the points that arise for consideration are:points that arise for consideration are:that arise for consideration are:arise for consideration are:for consideration are:consideration are:are:

¶32

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:the points that arise for consideration are:points that arise for consideration are:that arise for consideration are:arise for consideration are:for consideration are:consideration are:are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶33

ii) To what relief ?

¶34

Point No.i):

¶35

Mr. A. Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of Tadr the iebfr-d about the liability of the defendants. .j:IJ itiits R. r by the Applicant bank clearly establish iaoiilt/ #t{+',aO6r" The Applicant bank stated that the fu"t*# 3

¶36

loA.376/2023],

¶37

defendants complied the conditional order and paid a sum of

¶38

Rs.7,60,OOO/-.

¶39

AW.l was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.2 examined herself as DW.1, her evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendants having taken the plea they made payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal 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 defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 & 2.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

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

¶42

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant of Rs.39,73,214l- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs nd Two hundred and Fourteen only) with @^12.05o/op.a from date of filing of OA

¶43

¶44

(oA.316/2023)

¶45

till the date of realization LESS a sum of Rs.7,6o,ooo l- paidby defendants in SA.43l/2023.

¶46

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

¶47

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

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

¶49

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d day of July' 2025)

¶53

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

rRuEm
,.*,lW'IltY
- j- ' *vni?is.3,t'".i.
DHf'.1,:":-"' '.

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Stephen Lamination Plant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Stephen Lamination Plant

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Potthumuthu Soma Laxmi versus Union Bank of India

Samson Sherratt Richard versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Sarayu Fuel Point versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Vishweshwar Rao Gunda

State Bank of India versus M/S. Azmeera Shantha Earth Movers

State Bank of India versus M/s. Karthikeya Traders