Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Voodem Shekar Reddy

DRT15 Jan 2025OA/404/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an apex original application under sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act (implied) by Union Bank of India against two defendants. The court held the bank established its claim for debt recovery totaling approx 29.97 Lakhs with interest and costs, setting aside expert examination status of defendants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.29,97,834.04 plus 18% interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Voodem Shekar Reddy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.4O4 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Branch office at Gajwel, Siddipet district, Telangana State Rep by its Senior Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

VoodemShekar Reddy, S/o V. Raji Reddy,

¶9

Proprietor of Fruit Basket,

¶10

Male, aged 34 years, occ:business,

¶11

H. No. 5-3 1, Narsannapet village,

¶12

Jagdevpurmandal, chebarthy,

¶13

Siddipet district - 502 279.

¶14

Sri Mad ugariRajnikanth, s/o MadugariLaxman Rao, male, aged major, occ: business, H.No. 1-115, Anantharao pally, Gajwelmandal, Siddipet district. Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Parties: For the Appllcant veen Kumar For the Defendants

¶16

(oA.No.40al2024)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,29,97r834.O4ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Four and paise four only) with interest @ 18olo p.awith monthly rests from 11.10.2024 fll the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant no.1 availed credit facility of Rs.20.00 lakhs under cash credit and Rs.30.00 lakhs under term loan facility vide sanction letter dated 14.02.2022. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement. Defendant no.1 created mortgage of schedule mentioned property in favour of appricant bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 16.10.2023 and issued demand notice dated 74.L7.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendants and set exparte on 13.L2.2024.
ffi
d$
,ts
?ffi
'" 15 ;;
r.

¶21

(OA. No.a04l202a)

¶22

Sri M. Karthik Yadav, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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?

¶25

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.14. 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.

¶26

B. In the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.29,97,834.04ps^(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty^Four

¶27

and paise lerest @ 18% p.a from 11.10.2024 till
the date
*
1 5 JIll
'tl25

¶28

(oA. No.a04l202a)

¶29

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed agalnst the mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, slgned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of lan, 2025)

¶36

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

ffi-Un
* 15JAt{lffi :
B
^ii
3fo,**$9
Srfi?,q,

¶38

^#'i';[ie#Iilo'

Union Bank of India v. Voodem Shekar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Voodem Shekar Reddy

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Ragula Kavitha

Smt M Sarada Devi versus State Bank of India

Indian Bank versus Mr. Jakkula Amarender

Bank of Baroda versus Rp Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Thirumala Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Smt. Adusumalli Padmaja Sirisha