Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sri Jerpala Ramjee - Mohan Multispeciality Hospital

DRT8 Aug 2025OA/402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in an Original Application concerning a term loan of Rs.1.50 crore, classified as NPA, held that the bank proved its claim through exhibited documents. The Tribunal allowed the OA against the proprietor and guarantors, confirming the defendants' liability to pay the claimed amount with interest and proceed against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.59,73,392.81 plus future interest; Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties.

Uco Bank versus Sri Jerpala Ramjee - Mohan… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-IAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 8'n^{DAY oF AUGUsr,2025}

¶3

PRESENTI SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.4O2 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

UCO Bank, Abid Circle branch, #5-8-600 to 604,^{1't floor,} Mubarak Bazar,^{Abid circle,} Hyderabad - 500^{001, TS.} Represented bY^{its ChiefManager} And Authorised^officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Srl JerplaRamjee, Proprietor of^{M/s.Mohan Multi} Speciality^HosPital, H.no.7^{-3-49/MNl27lL,} Mallikarjunnagar,^{Block no.2,} Road no.7, Sagar^{Ring Road,} Near Pochamma^{Temple, Bairamalguda,} Yashodaranagar,^HYderabad -^f9.

¶10

Sri JerplaRamjee, s/o Sri RedYalerPla,^{aged major,} occ: doctor,^{H.no.7'3-49/MN/27/ l,} Mallika rj u nnagar,^{Block no' 2,} Road no.7, Sagar^{Ring Road,} Near Pochamma^{Temple,Bairamalguda,} Yashodaranagar,^{HYderabad- 79'}

¶11

Also at:

¶12

H.No.3-22/4, street no.^{1 1, Venkateshwaraco} Saroornagar,^HYderabad -^S001! .! Ranga ReddY district. ,

¶13

(OA.No.402 of 2024)

¶14

Also at

¶15

Flat no.301, Sri Sai ComPlex, Road no.5, Vaidehinagar, Vanasthalipuram, HYderabad -^70'

¶16

SmtRamavathBhagYa^Lakshmi, w/o Sri JerPlaRamjee,^{aged major,} occ: service, H.No.7-3-49lMN/27 /^1, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Block no.2, road no.7, Sagar Ring road,^Near Pochamma TemPle, Bairamalguda, Yashodaranagar, Hyderabad - 500 079.

¶17

also at:

¶18

H.No.3-22/4, street no.11, Venkateshwara^colony, Saroornagar, HYderabad -^{500 035.} Ranga ReddY district.

¶19

Also at

¶20

Flat no.301, Sri Sai^ComPlex, Road no.5, Vaidehinagar, VanasthaliPuram, HYderabad -^70.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the^Parties:

¶23

Smt K. Nandini^ReddY For the Applicant Sri l. Chinna Defenda ntsnts

¶24

Defenda ntsnts

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The the present OA^{against Defendants for} .59,73,392.81Ps^{(RuPees FiftY Nine} La kh sseveonfi kh sseveonfi nd Three hundred^{Nanety Two and}

¶27

La kh sseveonfi kh sseveonfi

'r,I[,--Fffitn

(OA.No.402 of 2024)

paise Eighty one only) with future interest @ 12.70o/o p.a with monthly rests from 0t.10.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged^properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶32

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is the proprietor of M/s. Mohan Multi Specialty Hospital and 2 availed Term loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- dated 11,.12.2019 against mortgage of schedule properties. The defendants executed all necessary loan documents such as demand promissory note, letter of waiver, agreement relating to term loan, interest agreement, and letter dated 17.09.2019. The defendants created equitable mortgage in favour of Applicant bank by depositing original title deeds vide memorandum of deposit of title deeds bearing documents no.6354/2010 dated 06.10.2010, sale deed document no.7072/2010 dated 09.11.2010 and Regd rectification deed document no.773l/2010 dated 04.L2.2010. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors to the loan availed by the defendant no.1. 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 on 29.05.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the

¶33

account, cant bank issued demand notice dated '..'...." ..':'' 6:: 28.08$0$A, nts did not come forward to repay the same., The Applicant against defendants is of '.; '.7 '.7

¶34

same., The '.; '.7 '.7 n

¶35

¶36

(OA.No.402 of 2024)

¶37

Rs.59,73,392.81ps (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Three hundred Ninety Two and paise Eighty one only) with future interest @ l2.7Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from 0L10,2024 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶38

The Defendant No.1 &2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that no documents were filed by defendants 1 and 2 and that the defendant did not create equitable mortgage in favour of Applicant bank It is further contended that the defendants signed on blank documents under the compulsion of Applicant bank. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 but not filed any docu m ents.

¶39

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶40

Heard the arguments.

¶41

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶42

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in

¶43

OA against the defendAnts ? ,

¶44

' ' ''l_ _:\ "
ii) ' To what relief '?. '; .' , , 'ni,, . r '
a' -i''; '''r;i.- '
1 ! .:r tii LL1 |.-y 'h','.n '<'i
Point No.i):l
---1i: orntroM lli
\i'

¶45

(OA.No.402 of 2024)

¶46

Sri B. Murali Krishna, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.21 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶47

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. 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 No.1 to 3 are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant 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 to 3.

¶48

Point No.ii) i'^{-- ''ii,r,y} B, In the resu lt, sent Oiijinal on is allowed with costs as

¶49

u nd er:

¶50

(OA.No.402 of 2024)

¶51

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.59,73,392.81ps (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Three hundred Ninety Two and paise Eighty one only) with future interest @ L2.7Oo/o p.a from 07.10.2024 till the date of realization.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶57

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶58

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of Aug' 2025)

¶59

sd/-

¶60

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

08tljcm5

¶62

TKUE COPY
n"o.ffio
NPT.I, HYDE?ABAA

Uco Bank v. Sri Jerpala Ramjee - Mohan Multispeciality Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sri Jerpala Ramjee - Mohan Multispeciality Hospital

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Pranav Infra Projects

State Bank of India versus Sri Ravi Kiran Kamath

State Bank of India versus Sri Raghavendra Traders

Uco Bank versus Sri Jerpla Ramjee

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Bazaru Arun Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Balaji Industries