Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Nama Narsi Reddy

DRT11 Jun 2025OA/165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan default. The Tribunal held that bank documents established liability despite defendants' denial and forgery plea. Recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 27,05,141.18 with interest to the Applicant bank and to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Nama Narsi Reddy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

oA.No.165 0F 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Kondamallepally branch Nalgonda district -5OB 243 Telangana state.

¶7

Represented by its authorised officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Mr. Nama Narsi Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy, aged 64 years, male, #2-3L/ 1, Ummapuram, Ummapur, Chinthapalle,

¶11

Nalgonda - 508 250.

¶12

Mrs. Nama Sujatha, w/o Narsi Reddy, female,

¶13

major, # 2-3L/1, Ummapuram, Ummapur, Chinthapalle,

¶14

Nalgonda - 508 250.

¶15

Mr. GopidiLaxmiNarsimha Reddy, s/o Gopidi Mohan Reddy, male, major, 7-57 , Tenepalle, Nalgonda - 508 256.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Defendants No. 1

Defendant

Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrala Sri Indravara Prasad Rao Expa rte

¶22

JUil Aps

¶23

(OA. No.16s/2024)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants For recovery of a total sum of Rs.27,O5,141.18ps (Rupees Twenty

¶26

Seven Lakhs Five Thousand One Hundred Forty one and paise Eighteen only) i.e.,

¶27

a) A sum of Rs.21,53,267.18ps with interest @ 9.85o/o p.a with penal interest of 2o/o fromll.O5.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶28

b) A sum of Rs.1,50,492/- + Rs.2,86,159 + Rs.52,478 + 62,745/with future and pendelite interest @ MC:LR + 1.95o/o p.a from 01.05.2024 till the date of realization;

¶29

And in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶30

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a borrower and defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors availed term loan of Rs.19,90,000/- for expansion of dairy unit on hypothecation of animals and mortgage of agriculture land more fully mentioned in the schedule to OA. On 03.05.2021, the defendants availed agriculture credit of Rs.2,53,000/- as crop loan, working capital for cultivation and executed demand p note, letter of continuity AD-09, letter of general rest agreement, Hypothecation agreement and mortgaged the schedule JUll 2$8

¶31

(OA.No.165/2024)

¶32

mentioned property. The defendants availed Rs.1,32,000/- on t9.08.2022 and executed necessary documents.

¶33

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants

¶34

have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant no.1 has not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued notices but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.27,05,141.18ps

¶35

(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Five Thousand One Hundred Forty one and paise Eighteen only)with future interest @ 9.85o/o p.a with penal interest @ 2o/o from01.05.2024 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶36

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. Defendant no.3 remained exparte. The defendants denied the hypothecation of movables and mortgage of schedule mentioned property. It is denied that the defendants executed loan documents, demand promissory notes etc. It is further contended that the OA was filed by forging / impersonating the signatures of defendants. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶37

Defend 2 examined themselves as PW.1 and not filed

¶38

(oA.No.16sl2024)

¶39

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶40

Heard the arguments.

¶41

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶42

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has^proved its claim as^madein OA against the defendants^?

¶43

ii) To what relief ?

¶44

Point No.i):

¶45

Sri ShaikJavedAhmed, BranchHead/^AW.1 who^{was examined on} behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the^liability of^the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.27 exhibited by^{the Applicant bank} clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶46

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants.^{Even though} defendants No.1&2 examined themselves^as PW.1,^{their evidence is} in noway helpful to them. The defendants^having taken^{the plea} that the applicant bank did not follow the^{RBI guidelines and that the} present OA was barred by limitation, failed to^place any substantial prooF to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank that all the relevant documents rmal course of tra nsaction. ,' ilv The defendants ve{y vaguel at particulars made in the oA are no, .oO(8,. tJt ru *{n/ffi,n"I tement of accounts, the ., o.sr?$

¶47

(oA. No.16sl2024)

¶48

defendants No.1 to 3 are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entifled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 to 3.

¶49

Point No.ii)

¶50

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶51

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.27,O5,14l.lgps (Rupees Twenty

¶52

Seven Lakhs Five Thousand One Hundred Forty one and paise Eighteen only) i.e.,

¶53

a) A sum of Rs.21,53,267.18ps with interest @ 9.850/o p.a from 01.05.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶54

b) A sum of Rs.1,50,492/- + Rs.2,96,159 + Rs.52,479 + 62,745/with future and pendelite interest @ MC:LR + !.95o/o p.a from 0L,05.2024 till the date of realization;

¶55

The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described In the scheduleto OA towards the realization of the debt due.

¶56

The Appli also entitled to proceed against the person and towards rea lization of the debt due. 11. licantll JUram k is en jl to the costs of the oA. 5 ir i - ..t -' I

¶57

(oA.No.16sl2024)

¶58

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶59

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶61

(Dictated to the P.A,, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11ih day of lune' 2025)

¶62

sd/-

¶63

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

^ TRUF COPY
Ltg.4*-k

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Nama Narsi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Nama Narsi Reddy

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bheesetti Ramu

Smt Rizwana Begum versus Union Bank of India

Kompelli Jyothi versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Suryodaya Infra Projects (I) India Private Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Ms. Kankipati Niharika

State Bank of India versus Sri. Muttagi Srisailam