Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Maha Ganapathi Electricals

DRT21 Mar 2025OA/328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this OA filed for recovery of a dues of approx Rs. 40.63 Lakhs along with interest, the Debt Recovery Tribunal affirmed the bank's claim after hearing evidence and lacking defense, ordering recovery against the hypothecated movables and property of the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Principal sum of Rs.40,63,693/- with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and defendants' properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Maha Ganapathi Electricals — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2IST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.328 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Khammam Bus station complex Branch, Khammam, Khammam District - 507 002, Telangana State Represented by its Senior Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri MahaGanapathi Electricals, D.No.15-13-84/2, Beside State Bank of India, Bypass road, Khammam - 507 001.

¶10

Khammam district, Telangana state Represented by its sole proprietor Mr. BandiVenkateswara Rao.

¶11

Mr. BandiVenkateswara Rao, s/o B. Nageswara Rao, aged 3g years, occ: business, R/o D.No.3-10, Kolakodima village, Thalladamandal, Khammam district - 507 167. TS Sole proprietor of M/s. Sri Maha Ganapathi Electricals. Defenda nts

¶12

Counsel for the
For the Applica Prasad
?1 t{ [s 2S6' 2I
For the Defend
Errrg€
,--s
$.m
ovrpx

¶13

(oA, No.328/2024)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants ror recovery of a total sum of RS.4O,G3,693/_ (Rupees Forty Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three only) with future interest @ 11.300/o p.a from date of firing of oA ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

2, As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 avaired working capitar roan of Rs.40.00 rakhs under CGTMSE on 30.01.2023. Defendant no.2 representing defendant no.1 firm executed demand promissory note, hypothecation agreement and arso executed personar retter of guarantee in favour of Applicant bank on 30.01.2023. After avaiting the loan facilities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpAand issued notice dated 22.07.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands' the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶17

Defendants
parte on 24.02.2025.
fl t*
i*
? 1 lr$ 2$6
-7

¶18

(oA. No.328/2024)

¶19

Sri B. Ashok, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.8.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

6' 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?

¶22

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.B. 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.

¶23

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

¶24

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.40,63,693/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three only) with future i a from date of filing of OA till the date or reattl{ti9.,n.^'--& 21^tilfl

¶25

(OA. No.328/2024)

¶26

The Applicant bank is entitred to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedure to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶27

The Applicant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

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

¶29

12' The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶30

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned. Iflf,Xt""if? T:# ir:rr?[cj;t"5d) " her, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶32

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

4qt?
.:i
21 ilAR zuE
: ..
r;

¶34

[ft,f::ry,
,l|f,ffi,-

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Maha Ganapathi Electricals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Maha Ganapathi Electricals

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

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