Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sate Venkata Srinivas

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/201/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 201/2025 filed by Union Bank of India. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to repay Rs. 52,65,207.36 plus future interest and costs, and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 52,65,207.36 with future interest and costs; OA schedule property made liable to realize debt; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Sate Venkata Srinivas — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS^'rHE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB, (Hons.), M,A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 201 OF 2025

¶3

Union Bank of India., Ramchandrapuram

¶4

Rep. by its Manager and principal Officer.

¶5

.....Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sate Ven kata Srinivas
S/o. Sate Durgaiah, Aged 50 years
Resid ing at H,No.5-211/A, Gandhi
Street, Medcha I Village
14edchat Matkajgiri District - 5O1401.

¶8

Also at:Plot No.2, Survey No.1047, Block No.5 Bank Colony, Medchal Malkajgiri Mandal l.4edchat Matkajgiri District _ 501401.

¶9

Smt. Sate Santosha Laxmi S/o. Sate Venkat Srinivas, Aged 43 years Residing at H. No.5-211/A, candhi Street, lvledcha I Villaqe [4edchal Malkajgiri District - 501401.

¶10

Also at:-

¶11

Plot No.2, Survey No.1047, Block No.5 Bank Colony, N4edchat Malkajgiri t4andal Medchat Matkajgiri District^_ 501401,

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. P. Balaji
Defendants :Ex-parte

:Ex-parte

CY*u

oA.NO.20u202s

:: g-LLEL^::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.52,65 ,207^{.36psfrom the defendantsjointly and} severally with future^{[email protected] p.a with monthlyrests} from 01.02.2025^{till the date of realization along withcostsand} ln default for sale^{of OA schedule property'}

¶19

Summons served^{on D1} and 2 through^{paper publication.They} 13.06.2025 as called^{absentand no}

¶20

were set ex-parte^on representation.

¶21

B. Venkateswara Rao,^Chief

¶22

1. The Applicant Bank^examined Manager, as AW-1 and^marked 07 documents through^himas Ex. A.1 to Ex.^A.07.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank. Perused the} material Placed on^record.

¶24

The^point that arises^{for conslderationis:-}

¶25

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled wlth the recitals in the^documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant^Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. lYrr*

¶27

¶28

oA.NO.201/202s

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.201/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.52,65,207.36ps with future interest @9.65% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage

¶32

'i) of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th Day of November, 2025).

¶38

/M"#

¶39

lnirMesHwnR^KoTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Sate Venkata Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sate Venkata Srinivas

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sree Camphor Works

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now versus Kancharla Srinadh

Idfc First Bank Limited Now versus Sri Nidhi Carbonic Gases

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Jagannath Ram

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus G. Jayamma

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank versus Sri G C Nallappa