Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Manjus Beauty Lounge

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Union Bank of India's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 32,44,907.58 from a beauty lounge and its partners. The respondents were set apart ex-parte, and the court found the bank's evidence sufficient to establish joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs. 32,44,907.58 with interest and costs; issuing a Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Manjus Beauty Lounge — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF ]ULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SFl. RAMESHWXR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 232 OF 2023

¶4

Union Bank of India., Hi Tech City Branch, MadhaDur R R District. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶5

...Applica nt

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Manjus Beauty Lounge., Rep by its Managing partner Smt. Swathi Reddy Sappidi H.No. 8-2-2931821450, ptot No.45O Ground Floor, Road No.19 Opp. Peddamma Temple Lane Beside Dadus Sweet Shop Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶8

Smt. Swathi Reddy Sappidi W/o. Chandrakanth Reddy Velupala Major, Managing^partner I4ls. Manjus Beauty Lounge H.No. 8-2-293182 /49/A, 3'd Ftoot SR.No.10C, Near^pochamma Temple J ubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Tela ngana-500033.

¶9

Sri Chandrakanth Reddy Vetupala s/o. sanjeeva Reddy, Major Managing Partner, M/s.Manjus Beauty Lounge H.No. 8-2-293182 /49/A, 3'd Ftoot SR.No.10C, Near Pochamma Temple iubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Te la nga na - 50003 3.

¶10

. ..... Defendants Cou nsel for the Applicant : M/s. P.Balaji Defendants : Ex-parteN*

¶11

OA.No.232l2023

¶12

::^{qLLEL ::}

¶13

The Applicant^{Bank filed the presentOA for the recoveryof a total} sum of Rs.32,44,907.58ps^{from the defendantsjointly and severally} with future^{interest @13.600/0p.a' with monthly rests from the date} of application till^{the date of realisation alongwith costs'}

¶14

Summons served^{on D1 to 3 throughpaperpublication They were} set ex-parte on^{28.06.2024as called absentand no representation'}

¶15

The Applicant^{Bank examined V.Sumana Sirisha, ChiefManageras} AW-1 and marked 08^{documents through her as Ex' A 1 to Ex'} A.08.

¶16

Ld. Counsel for the^{ApplicantBank stated orders may be passedon} merits. Perused the^{materialplacedon record.}

¶17

The point that arises for consideratlon^is:-

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank^is entitled^for the claim made in the OA against^the Defendants?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendants^remained ex-parte.^{The Evidence} Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz.,^{Exs.A.1 to} A.08 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.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.232/2023 is alowed as unde.: - (ru(\v,

¶21

OA.N0.232/2023

¶22

i) The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.32,44,907.58ps with future interest @11.600lo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against

¶24

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶26

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to fire cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate according Iy.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d day of July, 2025).

¶29

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Manjus Beauty Lounge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Manjus Beauty Lounge

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v. Lokesh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gore Amarnath Reddy

Ms Tudor Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Kamal Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Teja Sri Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus S Jagannath Reddy