Allowed

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

DRT4 Mar 2025OA/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery. The defendants availed loans but failed to repay. Despite denying the claim in their written statement, they neither filed evidence nor cross-examined the bank's witness. The court held the defendants liable.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.46,94,306/- with future interest @ 10.95% p.a.; the bank is entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and the properties of both defendan

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Varalaxmi Saw Mill — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.49 OF ZO24

¶5

Between:

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Varalaxmi Saw Mill, Situated at Sy.no.345/T, Kakaravai village, Thirumalaya Palemmandal, Khammam dist Telangana State - 507 003. Represented by its Proprietrix Mrs BuddaSaraswathi.

¶10

Mrs.BuddaSaraswathi, w/o BuddaKanakaiah, aged 51 years, occ: busin ess, R/o D.No.20-6-3911, Kothu Bonakal road, Dha masa la pu Khammam - 507 003.

¶11

r&
rP
:f,: 0 [ t{AR 2025

¶12

Khammam dist, TS.

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

Sovrir:i'9

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri lv].V.S. Prasad Sri D. Raghavulu

¶18

(oA.No.49 of 2024)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.46,94,3O6l- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Three Hundred and Six onty) with future interest @ 10.g50lo p'a fromdate of firing of oA ti, the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

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.25.00 rakhs and working capital of Rs.25.00 lakhs total aggregating Rs.50 lakhs under CGTMSE on 30.11.2022. The defendant no.2 mortgaged Schedule A property in favour of Applicant Bank and executed General term loan agreement, term loan agreement, letter of guarantee, demand promissory note dated 30.71.2022. The defendants l and 2 deposited the tire deeds document bearing no.6672/2022 dated 24.72.2022 at SRO, Kusumanchi in favour of Applicant Bank.

¶22

It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facillties and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as su was classified as NpA on 04.09.2023 and issued demdnd nffi" Ol .09.2023. Inspite of i...J7,ttl not regularized the demands made by Applicanr f"r.tfoi.grli"4 ltAfl 2925 account, and the defendants did not iom rward to repay the

¶23

(oA.No.49 of 2024)

¶24

same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of

¶25

Rs.46t94,3O6/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Three Hundred and Six only) with future interest @ 10.95olo p.a fromdate of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶26

2' The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed 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 regular in repaying the loan amount and denied the classification of account as NpA without following the RBI guidelines. It is further contended that the OA is neither maintainable nor tenable, hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶27

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.13. As against this, the
defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in
support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine
the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated
adjo u rn m ents, th er.y'6fqffiksqifd$e q.-ffi _% Fi te evid en ce Aff i da vit, h en ce
the right of filing:, Defenl$rt rvitln& Affidavit was ctosed on
07.02.202s.,, 'l -t 0 4 i4ARZ0ZS :],,
,' i !t}i.
i.- rr-r ..-.r'11.. .fEl;p$rf
'ts - ".4']tf :iiv.".-l I - - './'
''l
. .:.

¶28

(OA.No.49 of 2024)

¶29

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also 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 placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶34

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 amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting d blishing that they have not hypothecated * and ''l "' ged immovable property. Under such ci ,,u $.8r,\1f"7U$io"nou. or AW. 1 coupred with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.1 nchallen unrebutted. The ,1

¶35

(oA.No.49 of 2024)

¶36

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

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶39

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.46,94,306/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Three Hundred and Six only) with future interest @ 10.95olo p.a fromdate of filing of OAtill the date of realization;

¶40

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

¶41

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

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

¶43

The Applicant shall file hin two weeks from the date of receipt of order.^,

¶44

Issue Recovery certificat$ Arcqmi?fly *

¶45

(oA.No.49 of 202a)

¶46

13, communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(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).

sd/ -

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

%
J BoilAn?$as lii
'
%*.u

¶52

dRUETCgt';
(,1 ::ffi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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. Saraswathi Engineering Works

Singhu Chandra Kiran and another versus City Union Bank Limited

Pajjuri Lasyapriya versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.