The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India against entrepreneurs for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 45,71,045.28 with interest, rejecting the defendants' denial of liability as unsupported by evidence.
Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 45,71,045.28 with interest; recovery certificate issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESTDING oFFIcER
OA.No.178 of 2023
Between:
Union Bank of India, Chikkadpalty branch, H. No. 1-1-230l1 1, Chikkadpalty Main road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020. Represented by its Branch Manager
Applicant
VERSUS
Deepthinagar, Madinaguda,
Miyapur, Hyderabad, TS _ 5OO 049. Rep byproprietor Mr. Unimidela A nja neyu lu .
Defendants
Counsel for theparties:
For the Applicant
Sri D.S. Pavan Kumar Sri B. Narasinga Rao #tr :z6ilARm : kh,r-"#
For the
(o A.178/2023)
ORDER
from date date of realization; ano in ae6ui i thecated property as described in the schedule to OA. -! ,) 26l'lARm : q.j W,.sy
(oA.178/2023)
As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.2 0n beharf of defendant no.1 avaired term loan of Rs.7'00 rakhs under "Union Mudra scheme,, vide sanction letter dated 18.0g.2018. The defendants executed interest agreement, demand promissory note, letter of continuity, letter of confirmation, letter of undertaking ad letter of consent on 18'08.2018. subsequenuy the defendants avaired term roan of Rs.5 lakhs and cash credit of Rs.25.00 lakhs and executed documents in favour of Applicant Bank. The defendants executed generar term loan agreement for Rs.3B.B7 lakhs and hypothecated the goods, materials etc in favour of Applicant bank.
It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued legal notice dated tg.Il.2O2l. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar craim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.4S,7l,O45.2gps (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seventy One thousand forty five and paise twenty eight only)with future interest @ 12.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.
- d 2 filed written statement and denied the The defendants denied the execution of f"'TsllnteP5 'n
(oA.178/2023)
documents and hypothecation of schedule property. It is submitted by the defendants that they were regular in repaying the loan amount and denied the classification of account as NpA without following the RBI guidelines. It is also submitted that the defendants made a substantial payments to the loan account which was not taken into account. It is further contended that the OA is neither maintainable nor tenable, hence prayed for dismissal of oA.
i)w Bank has proved its claim as made in i.t' OA ag6inst th a ii) ro *r,a? rEri&Hfl 2tl6
<br>
\oA.178/2023ll
Point No.i):
AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not hypothecated the movabres. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.29 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are riabre to pay the oA amount to the Appricant bank.
Point No.ii)
- In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as
jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant of Rs.45,71,045.28ps (Rupees Forty Five
(oA.17812023)
eight only) i.e.,
2 6 ilmm I
,.i)
(oA.17812023)
(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26rh day of March, 2025)
sd/ -
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
t
"t
$
, r.$<br>
e\TW, |tffiii,'l,rrifi.
7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the debt recovery tribunal ought to allow the original application filed for recovery of dues.
Whether the defendants proved substantial payments to negate the bank's claim.
Whether the hypothecation of movable property by the defendants was established.
Union Bank of India
M/s. V. Enterprises
Mr. Unimidela Anjaneyulu
Gummadhi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
