Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Chaitanya Transport

DRT25 Apr 2025OA/332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India to recover a loan amount of approx. Rs. 72.81 lakhs from M/s. Chaitanya Transport. The Tribunal held the bank established its claim, permitting recovery of principal, interest, and proceeding against hypothecated movables. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 72,81,067.40 plus future interest at 10.80%-per-anum; authority permitted to proceed against hypothecated movables and defendant's property.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Chaitanya Transport — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs THE 2srHDAy oF ApRrL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.332 of 2024

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India, D.No.11-10-743,5BC, Opp DRDA complex, Burhanpuram, Khammam- SO7 OOZ. Telangana State. Rep by its GPA holder Sri Omar Saheb

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Chaitanya Transport, Represented by its proprietrix, Ms. Ubbapalli Chaitanya D/o Nagulu, aged 30 years l7 -6-57, Revathicentre, Khammam - 507 002.

¶10

Also at

¶11

l-4- L24, Sanjeevaiah colony, Yellandu, Khammam - 507 OO2.

¶12

Defenda nt

¶13

Counsel for the^pa rties:

¶14

For the Applicant

¶15

Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrala

¶16

For the _.,=,,ro,1..,f-6qdlDefendant rF. Sri P. Prakash Raju ' "$'' "-*s *' 2 5 tPR 2025

¶17

(oA. No.332/202a)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.72,81,067.4ops (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Eighty one thousand Sixty seven and paise forty only) with future interest @ 10.80% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed term loan of Rs.60.00 lakhs for purchase of 500M Model drilling rig under stand up India scheme. The defendant executed letter of continuity, interest agreement, letter of undertaking, demand promissory note, hypothecation of vehicles agreement, general term loan agreement etc. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 01.05.2024 and issued recall notice dated 02.05.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

dant filed vakalath but failed to file Written

¶22

2025

¶23

(oA.No.332/2024)

¶24

Mrs. B. Apurupa, 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.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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?

¶27

Counsel for defendant filed vakalath but failed to file WS. 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 claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶28

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendantis liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.72,81,O67.4Ops (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Eighty one thousand Sixty seven and paise forty only) with future interest

¶29

@ 10.80o/o ate of application till the date of realization.
n/,rf;-"A
.; ?sApB2m
.i
,';1"<br>^J
K . ';N,
N,,*-Sry
edffi9

¶30

(oA,No.332 12024)

¶31

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶32

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2sth day of April, 2025)

¶38

sd/ - (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

.i,
q%
.i
2 i nPn a6 *ii
,, l
T.;I
itr
t.: -;''^fii'i!r

¶40

TRUE^GOPY
,#:i'r-------WJ ll'

¶41

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Chaitanya Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Chaitanya Transport

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 Salla Ram Reddy

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Genex Tubing Solutions

State Bank of India versus Kannuri Kanaka Durga Prasad

Thakkallapally Prathyusha versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Palleni Sampath Rao and Another versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/s. Sarayu Fuel Point