Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Shanmuga Filling Station

DRT12 Mar 2025OA/750/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DoT-I (Hyderabad) allowed an Original Application filed by a Bank for recovery of dues ~35.58 lakh Rs. under an SOD loan against proprietors and family members. Defendants were ex-parte; the order held them jointly liable and mandated cost memo and recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Debtors jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.35,58,802.13 with future interest; mortgaged and un-mortgaged properties liable for realization; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Shanmuga Filling Station — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12T! DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), tvl.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLiCATION No: 750 OF 2023

¶4

Union Bank of India, Puttur Branch, Eswarudi Gudi Street, Puttur - 517583. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Shanmuga Filling Station, Rep. by its Proprietor B. Madhavi D.No.32-6-89/1, Rachapalem Rachapalem Main Road, Puttur-517583.

¶8

Mrs. B. Madhavi,

¶9

Wo.^lvlr. B.Bhaskar Varma Beta Raju, Aged about 39 years,

¶10

Occ: Business,

¶11

H. No.14- 135, R.B. Centre, Tirumala, Tirupathi District, A.p.

¶12

Bhaskar Varma Beta Raju, S/o Ramachandra Raju Beta Raju, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,

¶13

H. No.14- 135, R.B. Centre, Tirumala, Tirupathi District, A.p.

¶14

B. Rama Chandra Raju, S/o B. Narasa Raju, Aged about 76 yearc, Occ: Business, H.No.14-135, R.B. Centre, Tirumala, Tirupathi District, A,p.

¶15

...Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant : tyr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao Defendants : Ex-parte

¶17

oA.NO.7sol2023

¶18

:; ORDER ::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.35,5g,8O2.13ps under SOD loan Alc No.190131100000061 from the defendants joinuy and severa y with future interest @12.25olo p.a. with monthly rests from 10.01.2023 to till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of Schedule of properties.

¶20

Summons served on D1 through paper publication, whereas summons served on D2 to D4. They were set exparte on 23.12.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Gadikota Haritha, Senior Manager. as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.13.

¶22

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is;_

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA Schedule properties?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.13 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jolnuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Appticant qqnk with future interest and costs. ,Xt\t9, ,v ,}- '

¶26

-'"ti-'-

¶27

oA.NO.750/2023

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.75012023 is allowed as under: -

¶29

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.35,58,802.13ps under SOD loan Alc No.190131100000061 with future interest @11.30o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of Mortgage of Properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and propefties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12s Day of March, 2025).

¶37

/M# (-7^>-

¶38

(MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S Shanmuga Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Shanmuga Filling Station

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

Venu Akula versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus sri sai Equipments

Venu Akula versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Sahasraksha Enterprises

Union Bank of India (e-Corporation Bank) versus Panchala Ganga Naidu

Union Bank of India (e-Corporation Bank) versus Sarabu Yogananda Chari