Bank applied under S. 19 RDAB Act for recovery of loans. Defendants pleaded pandemic and blank documents. Court held claims unmerited and ordered payment.
Directed defendants to pay sum of Rs.66.56 lakhs with future interest and costs; permitted sale of OA schedule and attached assets.
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 RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2022
Union Bank of India Chittoor Branch Vels Plaza D. No.17-220 & 221 Ground Floor Sundarayya Street Chittoor, Rep. by its Assistant lYanager.
.....Applicant.
Versus
..... Defendants.
Counsel forthe Applicant : Mr. N.V. Subba Raju. Counsel for Defendants : Mr. Abhay Singh.
:: ORDER::
LF
2
OA.27l2OiE2
interest @14.20olop.a. wlth monthly rests from 17.12.2021 tlll the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule assets.
oa.2712022
unit, the financing institution does not lose the financed amount. Applicant bank paid the fee to the Government under the CGSSI from defendants account and therefore, the same needs to be considered as payment made by the defendant. Applicant bank has not extended various relaxations announced by the Government during the pandemic despite various requests made by the defendants. The defendants request for OTS and regularisation were not considered by the applicant bank. The statement of account is inadrnissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. The OA averments are denied and the applicant is put to strict proof to prove th3 same.
/.*>"
oa.2712022
accountbecameNPA on 31'03'2021 i'e" much after the Pandemic Period'
o
Thepoints that arises for considerationare:-
WhatrelieP ii)
Point No.(i):
oA.2712022
borrowers from the liability in case of default in repayment of loans availed from the banks/financial institutions. As regards the contention of applicant bank making use of the unfi ed blank loan documents towards the OA claim, I deem it appropriate to mention that defendants approached the applicant for a one time settlement and restructuring or regularisation of loan account without raising any objection to the dues claimed by the applicant bank at the relevant point of time. It is, therefore, construed that this contention is invented for the sake of raising objections in the written statement but not on factual aspect of the case. Further, the defendants did not choose to confront AW.1 as to the authenticity of documents relied on by the applicant vide exhibits A.1 to A.15. This Tribunal attached the property belonging to defendant No.2 and her husband vide order dated 06.11.2023 in IA.759 of 2023.
Point No,(ii):
oA.2712022
@11.10o/op.a. simple from the dateof application till the date of realization;
(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court qn this the 286 day of April, 2025).
S(u'Nr
ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to OA claim against defendants and OA schedule assets as prayed for?
Whether the Covid-19 pandemic grounds or CGSSI guarantee covers the defendants from repayment liability?
Whether the blank document contention raised by defendants is tenable given lack of evidence or cross-examination?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union Bank of India
M/s. Master Apparels
R. Su lochana
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
