Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Dakireddy Buchi Reddy

DRT20 Feb 2025OA/353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 48 lakhs. The undersigned held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable as the evidence was unchallenged and found the statute of limitations was not a bar.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs.48,90,425.69 with interest; OA claim secured by mortgage; entitlement to enforce against persons and properties; costs awarded.

Union Bank of India versus Dakireddy Buchi Reddy — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

''ORIGINAL"

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2027 "-q-

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (HonS.), M,A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 353 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

LJnion Bank of India R. P. Road Branch Bunglow No.109 New No.1-7-252 to 254 Oxford Street Sarojini Devi Road Near Parkla ne Centre Secunderabad-500003. Rep. By its Authorised Officer.

¶7

.......Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

Mr. Dakireddy Buchi Reddy S/o D. Narayana Reddy Age: Major, Occ: Business H. No. 5-2, laligaon Gajwel Manda I siddipet District^-502278

¶10

Also at:

¶11

sy. No.318/A/1AA 3t8lA/2A,3t8/EE/1 3t9/EE/7,3L9U2 Jaligama Village Gajwel Mandal Sidd ipet District^-502274.

¶12

Smt. Dakireddy Ma njula W/o D. Buchi Reddy Age: Major, Occ: Business H. No. 5-2, laligaon Gajwel Ma ndal Siddipet District -502278.

¶13

..... Defendants.

¶14

1d1*on r^.f_r'-\9''t^-

¶15

oA.353lZO22

¶16

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defenda^nts

¶18

: Mr. Sethu Madhava Rao. : Mr. Vijay Kumar.

¶19

::^qLLEB ::

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s 19 of^{The Recovery} of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of^a total^{sum of} Rs. Rs.48,90,425.69Ps from the defendants⁽ Rs.47,20,896.34Ps with subsequent interest @12.10o/o p.a. with monthly rest towards Term Loan and Rs.1,69,529.35Ps wlth^subsequent interest @9.90o/o^per annum with monthly rests towards Corp. Loan) from the date of Application till the date of realisation and sale of OA schedule assets.

¶21

The averments of applicant bank as^per the OA, briefly, are that defendant No.1 is the borrower and mortgagor and defendant No.2 is the guarantor to the loan of Rs.48 lakhs availed from the applicant bank vide sanction letter dated 11.09.2018. Subsequently, 1st defendant avalled Crop Loan. Defendants executed requisite loan documents including Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of the applicant bank. Defendants committed default in repayment resulting in classification of loan account as NPA. Despite recall notices, defendants failed to clear the dues. Hence the present OA for recovery of outstanding dues totalling to Rs.48,90,425.69Ps putting the both loans together.

¶22

Defendants filed written statement. The sum and substance of which, in brief, is that the act of applicant by not releasing funds as per the loan agreement made the defendant company to suffer loss in business leadinq to its sickness. The OA is

¶23

O2'*'"

¶24

o^.3s312022

¶25

barred by limitation. The secured assets are agricultural lands and are exempted to proceed with under the SARFAESI Act. Despite a total payment of Rs.30,00,000/- appticant bank proceeded with the filing of the present OA. The outstanding dues as projected in the statement of account is denied as some of the deposits made by defendants have not been reflected.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined P. Ramakanth, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 30 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.30.

¶27

Defendants examined Dakireddy Buchi Reddy-Defendant No.1 as DW.1 but marked no documents. It is submitted that defendants were not afforded time to regularise the account and the deposits made by them were not taken into account while computing lhe outstanding amount. Defendants were made to sign blank stamp papers, formats, documents etc., and applicant made use of the same for filing the present OA.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Whereas, defendants' counsel prayed that orders may be passed based on merits. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶29

While reiterating the averments in the OA, learned counsel appearing for applicant bank^prayed for allowing the OA claim taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as brought out in the Exhibits A.1 to A.30 marked through AW. 1.

¶30

B. rhe point that arises for consideration ",- /X$.CI*

¶31

¶32

o A'35?lzo22

¶33

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for^{rhe OA claim against the Defendants} and the^OAschedule Proqetti$^as prayed.for?

¶34

o Availment^{of loan and default thereafterare not in dispute'} Despite raising^{obiectionsover obtaining signatures on blank} printed formats,^{affordingregularisationand omission of} deposits^{in the statementof account'takingup the matter with} its higher^{authorities,defendants failed to adduce any material} evidence.^{Further, defendants did not chooseto cross AW'1} disputing^{the documents relied on by the applicantbank' In the} given facts and^{circumstancesof the case' the Evidence} Affidavit of^{AW'1along with ExhibitsA'1 to A'30remain} unchallengedandunrebutted.Accordingly,Iholdthat defendantsland2arejointlyandseverallyliabletopaythe OA claim^{to the applicant bank along with costs}

¶35

In the result,^{the present Original Application No'353/2022is} allowed as^{under: -}

¶36

i) the defendants^{1 and 2 are liable to pay to} the APPlicant Bank^{atotal sum of} Rs'48,90,425.69Ps^{along with interest@} 9.10o/o^{per annum simplefrom the date of} application till^{the date of realization;}

¶37

ii) the OA clalm^{issecured bY way of} hypothecation^{and mortgageof properties} described^{in the schedules annexedto the OA} and the applicant^{bankis entitled to proceed} against the same^{to realiseits deOVffir,}

¶38

¶39

oA,353/2022

¶40

iii) applicant bank is also entiiled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants l and 2 for realization of its dues;

¶41

iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶42

11' The Appricant Bank is directed to fire cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web^portal.

¶45

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Dakireddy Buchi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Dakireddy Buchi Reddy

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

Chavasuresh Babu versus Union Bank of India

Smt Putha Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Industries.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Shri Vardhini Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr.Massa @ Masa Srinivas

Punjab National Bank versus Kambala Srinivas