Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Tirumala Cloth Stores

DRT17 Apr 2025OA/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an OA filed for recovery of a loan of Rs. 32.61 lakhs, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application. The bank established its claim via an official witness and documents since the defendants filed no written statement. The court held the bank entitled to recover the principal, interest, and costs against the mortgaged property and personal assets of the guarantors.

What did the court decide?

To pay the sum of Rs. 32,61,412/- with interest at 10.90% p.a., proceed against mortgaged and respondent persons' properties, and costs.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Tirumala Cloth… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17rH DAy oF ApRrL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.62 ot 2O24

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Chegunta branch, Medak district, Telangana. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s, Thirumala Cloth Stores, Represented by its prop. Sri Gande Suresh, S/o Anjaiah, Situated at Chegunta, Medak district - 502 255.

¶9

Sri Gande Suresh, s/o Anjaiah, aged major, male, occ: business, R/o H.No.9_117, chegunta, Chegunta mandal Medak district - 502 255.

¶10

3.
-(,
SriThodupunoori Suresh,. ,.{,-q --'e ''<br>s/o,Narsimhulu, aged malof;.F ,-, \
.
male, occ: business, ;.
-16/1
CheR/o gq H.No.Bunta m -16/tandalandat , che gunta, - ounta, ':, 1 Z RpR Zm ,i ,
Medak district - 502 255. Defendanl5 -".,

¶11

Counsel for the parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri B. Srinivas

Dr. C.S. Chakravarthy

¶16

(oA.No.62l2024)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.32,61,412l- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Four hundred and seventy two only) with interest @ 10.90olo p.a and 2 o/o penarinterest from date of apprication ti' the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no'1 represented by defendant no.2 avaired roan of Rs'14'00 rakhs vide sanction retter dated 05.0g.2015. Defendant no.2 also created equitable mortgage in respect of schedule property and executed composite agreement and memorandum of deposit of tifle deeds vide document no.3337/2015 in favour of Applicant Bank. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor by extending personal guarantee to the tune of Rs'28'00 rakhs and executed deed of guarantee dated 77'72'2077' After availing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 2g.11.2021 and issued demand notice dated 13'0g.2023. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendgnts did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA. '":i,^''' " 'r" .., , j , ,f LDp TftA i:...,. 2 .^,., .,i. .,^:' .^.,.:r. ': . .' i'rztrror^'t'1-'..' - ..,,' "--{rrn!-t;:t"

¶20

(oA.No.G2l2024)

¶21

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file Written statement.

¶22

Sri Syed leelani Basha, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶23

marked as Ex.A.1 to A. 10.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

prayed for?

¶28

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶29

t OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶30

ts .afqliljg-inHy and severally liable to pay to the

¶31

pli.TlBf[f,flfrat siurn of Rs.32,61,412/- (Rupees Thirty Two

¶32

.lakh-s Sixty One. f#iitsanO Four hundred and seventy two

¶33

-. 1 t1,r,.,Og:,.?: ' : - 'l''i''' ' . -.:;;- . . -^-,. .^{i.:_ ".}

¶34

¶35

(oA.No.62/20241

¶36

only) with interest @ 10.90olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶38

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person

¶39

and properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

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

¶41

The Appricant shail file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17b day of April, 2025)

¶45

17 MN?W

¶46

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
t,.9,6*4-{-TTRUE,COPY z-
*ta{arll
Ir4r-!, tii)!,?n9I9

¶47

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Tirumala Cloth Stores

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Tirumala Cloth Stores

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S.. Mokshit Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Pushpak Energy Industry

Bank of India versus M/S. Chandramouli Wines

T Narayana Rao versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Gopagoni Sridhar Transport Co.

State Bank of India versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Industries