Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi

DRT20 Nov 2025OA/285/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Origin Application against the Defendant for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 36,59,919.80 with interest and costs, considering the Defendant absent and the Bank having substantiated its claim via evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 36,59,919.80 with future interest @ 11.30% p.a.; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and Defendant's assets for realization and to recover costs.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI cOPICHAND, PREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 285 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Asif Nagar Branch, Hyderabad District, Telangana, Represented by its Branch Manager

Applicant

VERSUS

Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi,

Wo. Dr. Syed Abid Hussain,

¶10

Age : 54 Years, Sex : Female, Occ : Doctor, H.No. 8-3-1 91/305, Vengalrao Nagar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad,

¶11

Telangana State - 500 038.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the parties :

¶14

For The Applicant Momin Mohammed Rafiq

¶15

For the Defendant Exparte

¶16

17.11.2025 19.11.2025 20.11.2025 / H.a.'tt^t

¶17

(oA. No. 28sl202s)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.36,59,919.80 Ps (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Nineteen and Paise Eighty Only) i.e a sum of -

¶20

(ii) Rs.24,83,231.86 Ps (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty One and paise Eighty Six Only) with future interest @ 11.30% p.a with monthly rests along with Penal interest @ 2% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization;

¶21

(ii) Rs.l1,76,687.94 Ps (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Ninety Four Only) with future interest @ 11.30% p.a with monthly rests along with Penal interest @ 2% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization;

¶22

and in default for sale of the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule to OA.

¶23

As per in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defend Mortgage Loan of Rs.44,50,000/- with an

¶24

2^grtpgqsmpr!. p.a with monthly rests repayable in 144 nts of Rs.56,5761- each and executed General

¶25

(oA. No. 28sl202sl

¶26

Term Loan Agreement on 15.06.2017. The defendant created equitable mortgage morefully described in Schedule to OA and executed Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 14.06.2017 and also deposited Original Title Deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant availed Credit Card on 09. 11.2017 from the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 17.10.2023 and issued Demand notice on 18.10.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAES! Act, 2002..lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶27

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 07.10.2025.

¶28

sri. N. chandra sekhar, chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

,"'^''.'.,.' .::.".. ',"-"-

¶31

.!\ .^{+6+'1.",The..&int} that a ri:rise for consideration is whether the Applicant i.ii^t#lnt

¶32

,,){ _ bank^'F entitled for the claim made in the OA against the praved for?

¶33

: *r^ 2 0 ilt}u mnddti,as J

¶34

'{i..$, ^s.f","'

¶35

(oA. No.28sl2o2sl

¶36

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.15. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with uturee interest and costs.

¶37

ln the result, the present oA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶38

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.36,59,9{9.80 Ps (Rupees Thirty six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Nineteen and Paise Eighty only) i.e asumof-

¶39

(ii) Rs.24,83,231.86 Ps (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty One and paise Eighty Six Only) with future interest @ 11.30% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization;

¶40

(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Six Eighty Seven and Paise Ninety Four

¶41

(OA. No. 28sl202s)

¶42

Only) with future interest @ 11.30o/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization;

¶43

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property mentioned in the Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶46

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

¶47

ecovery Certificate accordingly.
ffi
IP.i:i ?i
14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

sd/rtiflry (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi

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

Mrs a Madhavi versus Hdfc Bank

Smt Balija Ramadevi versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Mr S Prabhakar Reddy versus State Bank of India

Indian Bank versus M/S. Raju Communications

Ch Vijaya Kanaka Durga versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Gaddam Jyothi versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited