Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Akshaya Traders Industries

DRT23 Jan 2025OA/409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originating Application filed by Union Bank of India against a proprietary concern and its guarantor. The Bank sought recovery of a loan amount with interest and costs. As respondents appeared ex parte and the Bank substantiated the claim, the Tribunal directed payment and directed enforcement against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 73,00,796/- plus interest at 10.05% p.a. and costs; recovery certificate issued; proceedings against mortgaged properties allowed.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Akshaya Traders… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RDDAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.4O9 ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, (E- Andhra Bank) Mahabubnagar-2 branch, Mahabubnagar, Telangana.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Akshaya Traders Industries, Represented by its^proprietor, Mr. Sambu Madhu Sudhan, Majot, #l-7-153/A/L, New gunj, Mahabubnagar Town & District, Telangana State -509 001. 2. Sri S. Rathna Pandu Reddy,

¶9

Male, major, S/o S. Kesi Reddy, # 4- 120, Bhagiratha colony,

¶10

Mahabubnagar Town & Dist-509 001.

¶11

And also at:

¶12

#D.No.4SlA, Allipur, Raichur road, Mahaboobnagar district - 509 OO1. Defendants Counsel for the Pa For the Applicant ffi nivasa Rao Ch a kra la For the Defendarrts J^{z J JAr{ ?oz5 E$} W---#'

¶13

(OA. No.409/2024)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.73,0O,796l_ (Rupees Seventy three Lakhs Seven Hundred and Ninety Six only) (Rs.48,14,763/- + Rs.24,96,O32.64ps) with interest @ 10.05% p'a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sare of mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietary concern and defendant no.2 is the guarantor avaired credit facirity of Rs.gg.00 rakhs on 31.10.2018. The defendants executed composite agreement, Dp note, RF 255 B extension of mortgage, RF 256 declaration etc and mortgaged the schedule mentioned property in favour of applicant bank. On 30.05'2011 the defendants executed deposit of titre deeds registered as EMG/ MOD No.3486/2OLL and hypothecated the assets. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 0L.07.2024 and issued demand notice dated 02.09.2024. of several requests and demands, the i/' defendants ," rdid.if" nding. Hence this OA.

¶17

W,*#

¶18

(oA.No.409/2024)

¶19

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 30.12.2024.

¶20

Sri R.S. Yadav, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined

¶21

himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4.22.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶24

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶25

prayed for?

¶26

7' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.22. 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 Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶27

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the nka total sum of Rs.73,OO,796/_ (Rupees Seventy Hundred and Ninety Six only) 4,763 Rs.24,86,032.64ps) with interest @ 10.05% cation till the date of realization; " pg il"lAiL3W "r

¶28

(OA. No.409/2024)

¶29

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

¶30

The Appricant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

The Appricant shail fire 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, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23d day of jan, 2O2S)

¶36

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

4e-|"*
fP GD
B. ," 'nn *^ i
w

¶38

PTffW. 7-tr'v

¶39

DNT.I, IIYDERAEP}

¶40

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Akshaya Traders Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Akshaya Traders Industries

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

Sankaran Namboodiri versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S R.S. Offset Printers

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Deepankar Tiwari

State Bank of India versus Sh Thana Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Inderjit Singh

Rashd Ahmad Sheikh versus vistaar financial service Pvt. Ltd.