Partly allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Jobs Zone Facility Service Pvt. Ltd.

DRT29 Jul 2025OA/688/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT-II, Hyderabad allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues from joint and several liable borrowers and guarantors who failed to repay term loan and UGECL loans, dismissing the claim against two respondents who were discharged or ex-parte. Held that Defendants 1-3 must pay the balance dues with interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,80,744/- with future interest and costs. OA claim dismissed against Defendants 4 and 5.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Jobs Zone Facility Service… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com, L.LB. (Hons. ). M.A PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 688 OF 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India., (E. Corporation Bank) Kothapet Micro Finance Branch Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Senior Manager.

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

Xf .Job: ^i o l'9^{FacititySe.rvicespvt Ltd.,}

¶9

unice at^plt No.46lp, 1sr Floor Sriven Enclave, Gajularamaram Hyderabad - 500055.

¶10

Also at:-

¶11

R/o. H. No_4-32- 11 51/2/ 12, Vijayanagar Colony, Kukatpalty, Hyderabad_5000i2.

¶12

Sri colla Joseph Raju, S/o.Late G.Venkaiah Aged about^years, Occ: Business R/o.Ptot No. 46lP, 1st Floor Sriven Enclave, Gajularamaram Hyderabad - 500055.

¶13

Sri. J.Vineel Kumar, S/o.Syam Kumar Aged about^years, Occ: Business R/o. MIG 44, TSIC Colony, Jeedimeua Hyderabad - 500055.

¶14

Sri. T.Srikanth, S/o.Sri Devendra Rao Aged about 34^years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.2-26, Wardhannapeta Mandal Perumandla Gudem, Warangal - 506310.

¶15

Sri K.Ramesh Babu, S/o. Babu Aged about^years, Occ: Butines'7,n _, ^o

tJ/ /,/ {o-

oA.5Aa/2023

R/o. Plot^{No. 46lP, 1't Floor} Sriven^{Enclave, Gajularamaram} Hyderabad -^500055'

¶20

.... Defendants

¶21

Mr.N.Manohar^ReddY Counsel^{for the APplicant:} representing^{Mr.S Sekhar ReddY} counsel^{for D-1 & 4} " Mr. G.Adrian^{Kiran Raj} : Ex-Parte Defendants^{2, 3 and 5}

¶22

:: ORDER^::

¶23

The Applicant^{Bankfiled the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery} ofDebts&BankruptcyAct,lgg3forrecoveryofatotalsumof Rs.30,80,369.14ps^{i.e, a sum ot Rs ',25} ',80^{',1 441- as on 15'05 2023} towards^{TermLoan Facility with future interest@13'25olop a' and a} sum of^{Rs.4,99,6241- as on 27 'O2'2O23towardsUGECLLoanFacilitv} with future^{interest@9 5olo p a' from the defendantsjointly and} severally^{from the date of application tlll the date of realisationalonq} with costs^{and sale OA hypothecated assets'}

¶24

2.TheavermentsofapplicantbankaspertheOA'briefly'arethat thedefendantNo.lrepresentedbyitsManagingDirectordefendant No.2, availed^{Commerclal Vehicle TerrnLoan from the applicantbank} vide sanction^{letter dated01 06 2019' DefendantNos'3 & 4 are the} guarantor to the^{loan and createdhypothecationof vehicles as} security^{to the loan. Defendantsexecuted necessaryloan documents'} Defendant^{No.1 availed GECLLoan from the applicant bank vide} sanction letter^{dated 23.06.2o2oDefendants 2 to 5 are the} guarantors and^{executed a deedof guaranteeto the GECL LoanDue} to default and^{neglectin repayment,the loan accountwas declared} as NPA on^{:Ig.f).zl2r as per the guidellnesissued by the RBI'} Despite several^{demands and in spite ofJoan Re6all noticedated} /,frffo'> (,.t/

¶25

oA.6aa/2o23

¶26

77.02.2023, the defendants faited to clear the outstanding dues. Hence the present OA is filed.

¶27

The Defendants 2, 3 & 5 were set ex-parte on 23.09.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶28

Though the Defendants 1 & 4 entered appearance through their counsel Mr. G.Adrian Kiran Raj. they did not choose to file written statement. Accordingly, defendants, right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 04.1O.2024.

¶29

The Applicant Bank examined p.Vikranth, Senior lvla nager as AW-1 and marked 14 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.14.

¶30

Applicant bank filed part satisfaction memo on 26.70.2023, discharging defendant No.4 from the OA claim for the reason of receiving his part of liability amount of Rs.4,gg,624/towards UGECL Loan A/c.No.560716000396946.

¶31

The Defendants, right of adducing evidence was forfeited for non-representation vide docket order dated 04.07.2025.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank, whereas Defendants 1 & 4 right of advancing arguments was forfeited on 24.07.2025.^perused the material placed on record.

¶33

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶34

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the OA claim against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicles?

¶35

According to the applicant bank, after availing loan facilities the defendants committed default i"ueuY ^" tfrW.ff.vEra, requests

¶36

oA.6Aa/2023

¶37

and legal^{notice.The defendants did not chooseto contestthecase} and the^{claim of the applicant bank is amplyprovedvide Exs A l to} A.14 marked^{throughAW 1 and the recitalstherein'}

¶38

As stated^{supra, defendants2, 3 and 5 remained ex parte and} the defendants^{1 & 4 did not chooseto file written statement'adduce} evidence^{or advance arguments Under such circumstances'the} Evidence^{Affidavit of AW 1 coupledwith the recitalsin Exs' A 1 to} A.14 marked^{on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged} and un-rebutted.^{The claimof Rs'4,gg'624/-is aqainst defendants1} to 5. In^{view of applicants part satisfaction memodated 26'10 '2023'} the applicant^{bankclosed the UGECL As per bank claim' the5th} defendant^{is liable only towardsUGECLwhich is closed' Hence' no} order is^{passed againstdefendant No 4 & 5Undersuch} circumstances,^{I hold that the defendants1 to 3 are liable to pay the} OA claim^{LessRs.4,99,624l-received fromdefendantNo 4 towards} closure of^{UGECLAccount to the applicant bank with future interest} and costs.

¶39

lz. In the^{result, the present OriginalApplication No'688/2023is} allowed as^{under: -}

¶40

i) Defendants 1^{to 3 are jointly and severally} liable to^pay a total^{sum ot Rs.25,80,7441'} towards Term^{Loan Facility to the applicant} bank along with^{future interest @1125olo} p.a. simple from the date of^{application till} the date of realization;

¶41

of ii) the OA claim is^{secured bY way} hypothecation of vehicles describedⁱⁿ the Schedules annexed to the OA^and the /X>,..n.t5 L/1s

¶42

oA.6aa/2023

¶43

applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for realisation of its debt;

¶44

iii) the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants 1 to 3 for realization of its dues; and

¶45

iv) OA claim dismissed against defendants 4 & 5.

¶46

v) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶47

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶48

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web Portal.

¶50

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of JUly, 2025. )

¶51

H6*p ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Jobs Zone Facility Service Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Jobs Zone Facility Service Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)

Ravi Kanth Durgam versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sun Shine Steel Industries versus Indian Bank

Domala Srinivas versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited