Allowed

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) v. M/S Y R Mining Company

DRT30 Apr 2025OA/896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues. The Defendants, present ex-parte, were held jointly and severally liable to pay the claim sum with interest and costs based on the evidence affidavit. The bank was also entitled to proceed against mortgage properties.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay total sum of Rs.3,93,48,089.90 with interest; allowing recovery from OA schedule properties; awarding costs.

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Y R Mining… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (HonS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 896 OF 2023

¶4

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Kurnool Main Branch, Near King Market, Kurnool-518001 A.P.

¶5

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Y.R. Mining Company, Represented by its Partner Y. Ramanna, H.No. 20-1-2, Kondapata, Rajeev Nagar, Dhone-S18 222, Kurnool District, A,P,

¶9

Yellavula Ramanna, S/o Y. Ranganna, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 1-163, Kristipadu, Ananthapur, A.P. - 515 455

¶10

Manne Pedda Nagi Reddy, S/o Pedda Pulla Reddy, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o D. No. 7/12, Nehru Nagar, Dhone, Kurnool District, A.P.sLB 222,

¶11

A, Sekhar Reddy, S/o A. Chinnapa Reddy, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 20ll/2, Rajeev Nagar, Kondapeta, Dhone, Kurnool, A.P.5l8 222

¶12

S.V. Prasad Reddy, S/o S.V. Subba Reddy, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Buiiness, /Aw><,**

¶13

/!/^{.-b[.r -}

¶14

oA.NO.896/2023

¶15

PJo H. No.5-1-12,^Paturuveedi, Allagadda,^Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518543

¶16

S Rala^{GoPal Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy,} Aoed about^{52 Years, Occ:Business,} n7o n. No. 7-2-12O,^{Near Kandukuru Road'} eitagadda,^{Kurnool, A.P. - 518 543}

¶17

...Defendants

¶18

: Sri.V. Sethu^{Madhava Rao} Counsel^{for the APP|icant}

Defeⁿ da^nts

: Ex-parte

::^qLLLL::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.3,93,48,089.90ps^{i'e , a sum of Rs'35'72'36284ps} with subsequent^{interest14'80o/o (I2'8Oo/o+2o/o)penalunder} Term Loan A/c^{No.O32O3O1OOO7O264,a sum of} Rs.18,91,145.83ps^{withsubsequent interest 10000/o} (8.OOo/o+2o/o)^{penal under Term LoanAlc} No. O32O301OoOB^{2773, and a sum of Rs'3,38'84'58123 with} subsequent^{interest14.000/0 (L2'O0o/o+2o/o) penal under SOD-} RE A/c.^{No.O32O311OOOOO8O3from the defendants jointlyand} severally from^{the date of application till the date of realization} atong with costs^{and in default for sale of OA schedule} properties.

¶23

Summons already^{served on D1 to D4 and D6' Summons} served on D5^{through paper publication'Theywere set ex-} parte on 14.10.2024^{as calted absentand no representation'}

¶24

Ylr*r,-",. *l-9

¶25

,/ -,^-^-

¶26

¶27

oA.NO.896/2023

¶28

.,. The Applicant Bank examined p. Sri Ramya Harshini, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 32 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.32.

¶29

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

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedute properties?

¶32

6, As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence AfFidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.32 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Appllcant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Apptication No.896/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3/93,48,089.90ps i.e., a sum of Rs.35,72,362.84ps under Term Loan A/c No.032030100070264, a sum of Rs.18,91,145.83ps under Term Loan A/c No.032030100082773 and a sum of Rs.3,38,84,581.23 under SOD-RE A/c. No.032031100000803; with future interest

¶35

ff.*>e

¶36

oA.NO.895/2023

¶37

@11'20olo^{p'a' simple from the date of} application^{till the date of realization;}

¶38

the oA^{claim is secured by way of mortgage}

¶39

ii) of^{properties described in the schedule} annexed^{to the OA and the applicant bankis} entitled to^{proceedagainst the same to} realise its^debt;

¶40

iii) the^{applicant bank is also entitled to proceed} against the^{person and propertiesof} defendants^{for realizationof its dues;}

¶41

iv) the^{apPlicant bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶42

The Applicant^{Bank is directed to flle Cost Memo within2 weeks} from^{the date of receipt of this order'}

¶43

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶44

Communicate ;-or"#;;;;;;-;";",^{a copy coriected, of this order signedand pronounced bv me in the open to the partles concerned court} -^on ihis the 3os^{Dav of April, 2025)} /---.a. -. r-6

¶45

OY**u

¶46

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) v. M/S Y R Mining Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) v. M/S Y R Mining Company

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

Sri Devineni Baswa Narendra Babu versus Union Bank of India

Venkat Ram Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Santosh Kumar Gumpanpally versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Vakkuntula Srikanth

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Annapanedi Ramanaiah

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Chimakurthi Nvdss Ram Kumar