Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Om Namashivaya Enterprises

DRT14 Aug 2025OA/300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of Rs.54,64,766.42 plus interest from the defaulting borrower secured by mortgage property upon ex-parte consideration of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed: Defendant to pay Rs.54,64,766.42 with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgage; applicant entitled to proceed against person/property for realization.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Om Namashivaya Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 3OO OF 2024

¶4

Union Bank of India., Krishna Nagar Branch Hyderabad District, Telangana State. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Om Namashivaya Enterprises (Formerly M/s.Patanjali Chikitsalaya) Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Regula Madhusudhan Rao, R/o. 8-3-944-8 Shop No.16, 17, Pancom Business C Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500073.

¶8

.....Defendant

¶9

: M/s. K.V.L. Na rasimha Rao Counsel for the Applicant Defendant : Ex-parte

¶10

::^qLLE& ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.54,64,766.42ps (Rs.9, 17,509.81ps + Rs.20,08,413l+ Rs.17,28,067.53ps + Rs.1,90,079.46ps + Rs.6,20,696.62ps) from the defendant with future interest @12.75olo, 13.30o/o, 8o/o, .7.50o/o & 10%^p.a. compounded with monthly^{rests from} the date of application till the date of realization along^with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule^property.

¶12

Summon served on sole defendant and was set etparte on 04.to.2024 as called absent and no representatioffitg

¶13

oA.NO.300/2024

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined Mikkllineni Naga Sai Durga Dinesh, Asst. Manager, as AW-1 and marked 37 documents through him as Ex.A.1to Ex.A.37.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶16

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶17

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule property?

¶18

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.37 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶19

In the result, the present Original Application No.300/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶20

i) The Defendant is liabte to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.54,64,766.42ps (Rs.9,17,509.81ps + Rs.20,08,413/- + Rs.17,28,067.53ps + Rs,1,90,079.46ps + Rs.6,20,696.62 ps) with future interest @10.50% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶21

¶22

oA.NO.300/2024

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage 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;

¶24

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

¶25

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶26

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

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

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 14th Day of AUGUST, 2025).

¶29

tt$t9

¶30

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Om Namashivaya Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Om Namashivaya Enterprises

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

M/s. Ayurda Buildcon Rep. by Managing Partner Mr. Kalikiri Sriniketh Reddy versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Utukuru Narendera Kumar Reddy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Subhan Polymers Rep by Its Proprietor

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sri Balaji Granites

Icici Bank Limited versus Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Rathod Mangulall