Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Saraswathi Engineering Works

DRT4 Mar 2025OA/48/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. The court held the evidence unrebutted and directed defendants to pay the principal debt with future interest and allowed the bank to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.49,20,961/- with future interest @ 11.3% p.a.; Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties for realization.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saraswathi Engineering Works — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.48 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Khammam Bus station complex Branch, Khammam, Khammam District, Telangana State-507 002. Represented by its Sr. Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Saraswathi Engineering Works, Situated at Sy.no.339/F/1, Kakaravai village, Thirumalaya Palemmandal, Khammam dist Telangana State - 507 003. Represented by its^proprietrix Mrs BuddaSobhaBhuvana Sri.

¶10

Mrs. BuddaSobhaBhuvana Sri, w/o Vamsi Krishna Budda, aged major, occ: business, D.No.20-6-3911, Kothuru, Bonakal road, Dhamasalapuram, Khammam507 0 Khammam dist, TS. 7x. 3. Mrs. BuddaSaraswathi, IP w/o BuddaKanakaiah, BuddaKanakaiah, aged 51 years, occ: business,years, occ: business,occ: business,business, 0 [ t-lAB ?15

¶11

Mrs. BuddaSaraswathi, w/o BuddaKanakaiah, BuddaKanakaiah, aged 51 years, occ: business,years, occ: business,occ: business,business, R/o D.No.20-6-39 / t, Kothuru Bonakal road, Dhamasalapuram, Khammam - 507 003. Khammam dist, TS.

¶12

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri M.V.S. Prasad

Sri D. Raghavulu

(OA.No.48 of 2024)

ORDER

l The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,2O,961/_ (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Nine hundred and Sixty One only) with future interest @ 11.3% p.a fromdate of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a firm represented by its proprietrix defendant no.2 avaired term roan of Rs.15.00 rakhs and working capitar of Rs'35.00 rakhs totar aggregating Rs.50 rakhs under CGTMSE on 28.tt.2022. The defendant no.3 mortgaged Schedule A property in favour of Appricant Bank and executed Generar term roan . agreement, term loan agreement, letter of guarantee, demand promissory note dated 28.12.2022. The defendants 1 to 3deposited the title deeds document bearing no.B7/2023 dated 06.0L.2023 registered at SRO, Khammam rural in favour of Applicant Bank.

¶21

It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants have availed the sai repayment schedute,."5s he t was classified as NpA on ,,'.dF 28.07.2023 and issued demfn=d notice da 01.08.2023. Inspite of 0 4 fiAll ?_trfr^* demands made by Applicant the dbTen have not reg u la rized the account, and ome forward to repay the

¶22

(OA.No.48 of 2024)

¶23

same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is oF

¶24

Rs.49,2O,961/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Nine hundred and Sixty One only) with future interest @ 11.3% p.a fromdate of firing of oA tiil the date of rearization. Hence the oA.

¶25

The Defendants No.1 to 3 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and mortgage of schedule property. It is submitted by the defendants that they were regurar in repaying the roan amount and denied the classification of account as NpA without following the RBI guidelines. It is further contended that the oA rs neither maintainable nor tenable, hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶26

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri B. Ashok, Manager as AW.1 and through her marked 36 documents as Ex.A. 1 to A.14. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their beharf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his chief Eviience. Inspite of repeated adjourn ments led to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right ng anttlhrfdence Affidavit was closed on *\i 07.02.202 0[ r,lAfl 2$25 ;il ..-. s --€lJ i.i,.';Or. (aci &#vfg

¶27

(oA. No.48 of 2024)

¶28

I have perused the documents placed on record. 5, Now, the points that arise for consideration a re:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.i):

¶32

As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not praced any materiar documents to show their bonafides for estabrishing that they paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶33

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 have not hypothefttef-ttSlqgabres and mortgaged immovabte ,^'1r.4.\ property. Under-,$uch cirgumst3d'g\ the evidence of AW.1 coupted with recitals Ex,A.1.totA,,14 stqgd u llenged and unrebutted. The

¶34

(oA.No.48 of 2024)

¶35

Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶36

Point No.ii)

¶37

in the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nd er:

¶38

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.49,20,961/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Nine hundred and Sixty One only) with future interest @ 11.3% p.a fromdate of filing of OAtill the date of realization;

¶39

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

¶40

The Applicant Bank is also entitled 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.

¶41

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

¶42

The within two weeks from the date
Appli ffi%
of recei *
.fforder.'[c
72. Issue R $ery certificate aq5dt ly.
ff-;,{u- {';
'! -: r t','

¶43

' (OA.No.48 of 20241

¶44

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of March, 2025)

¶46

sd/ -

¶47

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

I q t{AR ?tt75

¶49

dli:fi:',''!:
oi',*4#i{rn

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Saraswathi Engineering Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Saraswathi Engineering Works

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Narra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Polymers versus Mahaveer Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Varalaxmi Saw Mill

Singhu Chandra Kiran and another versus City Union Bank Limited

Pajjuri Lasyapriya versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.