Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Gopagoni Sridhar Transport Co.

DRT17 Apr 2025OA/338/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of loans. The court held that the defendants had availed credit facilities but failed to repay. With admitted partial payment, the recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs.38,44,141.70 less paid amount, with interest and penal interest; entitlement to realize dues from hypothecated movables, mortgaged property, and person/properties

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE LTrH DAy OF ApRILt 20.25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.338 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Godavarikhani Branch, Near Singareni Super Market, Vidya nagar, Godavarikha ni, Peddapalli, Telangana Represented by its manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Gopagoni Sridhar Transport Co., Represented by its Proprietor

¶10

Mr. Gopagoni Sridhar,

¶11

H.No.6-2-262/3, Power House colony, Godavarikhani - 505 209.

¶12

Mr. Gopagoni Sridhar, S/o Shankar Gopagoni,

¶13

Aged 33 years, occ: business, male,

¶14

H.No.6-2 -26213, Power House colony, Godavarikhani - 505 209.

¶15

Mr. Gopagoni Shankar, s/o Buchilingaiah, aged 59 years, occ: business, male,

¶16

H. No.6-2 -26213,

¶17

Godavarikhani - 50 Defendants
Counsel for the Parties':
1 7 APB 2[6
For the Applicant Subba Raju
For the Defendant No.1 Sohan singh Chahel
Defendant No.3

¶18

(oA.No.338/2023)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.38r44,L4l.7ops (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Forty four thousand one hundred Forty one and paise Seventy only) with further interest @ Ll.2Oo/o p.a plus 2olo penal interest with monthly rests from 15.12.2023 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a principal borrower and defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors and defendant no.2 mortgaged the schedule property as security to credit facilities. Defendant no.1 availed SOD facility of Rs.40.00 lakhs for working capital requirements and executed necessary documents in favour of Applicant bank on 25.01.2018. Defendants 2 & 3 executed general form of guarantee dated 25.01.2018. Defendant no.2 mortgaged the schedule mentioned property in favour of Applicant bank and deposited the title deeds bearing doc. No.67312018 dated 30.01.2018. The working capital was renewed to Rs.38,50 ,000/- on 05.06.2020 and defendants also availed term loan of Rs.B.00 lakhs vide sanction -':::'f:^{': ' " *''} letter dated 1 ' L;0 6;p0..!O.,^'ti. * l. :.. It is ,submitte4::_ f i " licant bank that the Defendants : have avaitqd ltl,l. tn{ pafiffllgflg fa and failed to keep up the

¶22

(oA. No.338/2023)

¶23

repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA and issued legal notice dated 15.t1.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.38,44,l4l.70ps (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Forty four thousand One hundred Forty one and paise Seventy only) with further interest @ 11.20% p.a plus 2o/o penal interest with monthly rests from L5.12.2023 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

The Defendant No. 1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the creation of mortgage in favour of applicant bank and contended that the Applicant bank failed to adopt the mandatory principles laid down by RBI in classification of account as NPA. It is submitted that the Applicant bank invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act and issued demand notice, possession notice and sale notice. Challenging the proceedings, the defendant no.2 filed SA.313/2023 and obtained conditional stay order and paid a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶25

The Applicant BaIk ln support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri M. Nlranjan kumar, Manager as AW.1 and through him AalrkednlSfr*,xff" as Ex.A.1 to A.14. As against

¶26

¶27

(oA.No.338/2023)

¶28

this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 07.03.2025. The Applicant bank in Evidence Affidavit stated that the defendants paid a sum of Rs.8.OO lakhs on 27.06.2024.

¶29

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶31

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶32

ii) To what relief ?

¶33

Point No.i):

¶34

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as^per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it ls very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but "failbd to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the l-..i":1,.',- -,defendantstre clQi{ly mentioRed in the statement of account filed by t'r Applicant Bap(. 17 nonlnr The defendants^':! have not^placed any material documents to rno*'in"i, bonafides for establishing that they have .^:a',

¶35

¶36

(oA.No.338120231

¶37

not mortgaged the schedule property in favour of the Applicant bank.

¶38

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they signed on blank documents. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.14 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to^pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶39

Point No.ii)

¶40

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶41

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.38r44,L4L.7Ops (Rupees Thirty Eight

¶42

Lakhs Forty four thousand One hundred Forty one and^paise Seventy only) with further interest @ Lt.2lo/o^p.a from t5.L2.2023 till the date of realization less a sum of Rs,8.OO lakhs^paid by defendants on 27 .06.2024;

¶43

_,r.ffiu
lt ,,'n.', ,.i\ +ilI.,q}Er;<br>,il'"o g1 'o'H<br>i,, 17APnilr:)|
ir, --r ,",,: 3ll 5
t$rii.,,,.^*.ft#

¶44

(oA.No.338/2023)

¶45

B. The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of its dues.

¶46

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17h day of April, 2025)

¶52

sdl_

¶53

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

i-ffiq
,t*
1I ApR zt[s
,t .:
ti *a
s,a;,,t)

¶55

TRUEpoPY rv
0.s.'t53<
atffirrrl#
oRr-I, HyD[&,1i?,41

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Gopagoni Sridhar Transport Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Gopagoni Sridhar Transport Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S.. Mokshit Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Pushpak Energy Industry

Bank of India versus M/S. Chandramouli Wines

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Tirumala Cloth Stores

T Narayana Rao versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Industries