Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mounika Enterprises

DRT22 Sept 2025OA/307/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Proceedings-II, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of outstanding dues including interest and costs against the defendants for NPA loans despite partial payments made post-application.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay the adjusted balance of Rs 4,68,328.11 with interest; Bank to file cost memo; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Mounika Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TR]BUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER,²⁰²⁵ PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.}

¶2

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^NO, 307^{OF 2024}

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India M. G. Road Branch Secunderabad Telangana Rep by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. Mounika EnterPrises Regd. Office. 8-3-0-313/^Al3C.4 Omega Apts. Nagarjuna^Nagar Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-38.

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Factory/Shop 12-44-3A3/542, P &^T Colony Medipally village &^Mandal Peerzadiguda MuniciPality Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.

¶11

Shaik Allabakshi S/o Late Shaik Mastan Age about 65 Years Occ: Business,^{Flat No.C-3} H. No. 8-3-903/3/4/3 FC3 Omega APartments Nagarjuna Nagar Yellareddyguda Road Bata Lane, Khairatabad Hyderabad-500 038'

¶12

ShaikVenkateswaramma Wo^{Shaik Allabakshi} Occ: Business,^{Flat No.C-3}

¶13

H. No. 8-3-903/3/A/3,/4r,^- .r^ U un'

¶14

¶15

oA.30712024

¶16

FC-3 Omega Apartments Nagarjuna Nagar Yellareddyguda Road Bata Lane, Khairatabad Hyderabad-500 038. ..... Defendants. Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T. Sasiku mar. Counsel for Defenda nt : lvlr. M. Venka n na.

¶17

:: ORDER::

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,00,153.11ps joinfly and severally from defendants with future interest @8olo per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation and sale of OA properties.

¶19

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that 1st defendant is a partnership firm represented by defendants 2 and 3. They availed over draft facilities to a tune of Rs.35,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 07.O7.2020. The credit facilities are secured by way of hypothecation of stocks and collateral security of house belonging to defendant No.2. They executed requisite loan documents _ Hypothecation agreement, guarantee agreements, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of the applicant bank etc., followed by letter of continuity, balance confirmation. Due to default in repayment, applicant bank classified the loan account as NpA on 20.02.2023, followed by two reca notices dated 26.02.2023 and 29.02.2024 and demand notice under SARFAESI Act dated 74.04.2024. Defendants requested to drop the demand notice vide letter dated 08.04.2024 besides seeking renewal of credit limits. However, defendants failed to clear the dues. Hence / /Nn9,,,a.t:'^,.)>,

¶20

oa.3o7l2024

¶21

the present OA is filed against the defendants for recovery of outstandlng dues.

¶22

Defendant filed written statement on 17.12.2024. The sum and substance of the written statement, in brief, is that they are willing to clear the whole debt within the shortest possible time. In order to demonstrate their bonafides, defendants already deposited Rs.3,00,000/- on 22.77.2024 and were^planning to pay similar amount in a week. Accordingly, defendants prayed to issue a direction to the applicant bank not to take stringent steps against them.

¶23

¶24

1. In order to prove its case, the Applicant Bank examined Dinesh Kumar, Chief lYanager as AW-1 and marked 25 documents through him as Exs. A.1to Ex. A.25.

¶25

5, Right of defendants to adduce evidence was forfeited for nonrepresentation vide docket order dated 11.07.2025.

¶26

Both side counsel reported no oral arguments. Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties and the material placed on record.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and against OA schedule property as prayed for?

¶29

B. As per the written arguments filed on 07.08.2025, defendants stated that they have paid a total amount of Rs.20,31,825/- in the post OA, on various dates between 22.11.2024 and

¶30

oA.3O7l2024

¶31

19.06.2025. If that be the position, the OA claim comes down to Rs.4,68,328.11 (Rs.25,00,153.11ps tess Rs.20,31,825/_). Under such circumstances, I hold that Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim after appropriating the deposits made in the post OA proceedings, to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. However, considering the developments in the post OA and taking into account the conduct and bonafides of the defendants in discharging the liability, I am of the view that the parties may explore the possibility of settling the balance dues in any of the alternative mechanism provided for the purpose instead of proceeding against the secured asset in the meanwhile.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.30712024 ts allowed as under: -

¶33

i) the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a total sum of Rs.25,00,153.11Ps, less Rs.20,31,a25ldeposited by the defendants, along with interest @8o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

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

¶35

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

o A3O7l2o24

¶39

¶40

tz.CommunicateaCopyofthisordertothepartiesConcernedand e upload^{in Web Site'} and r -rn^pro n^oun ^,r. ced^{by me in the open court on this the} (Dictated^{to the steno'} 'l*^1tl 22nd^{day of september '2025'</sup>}

¶41

tttus,'J'HA-&"'IER

Union Bank of India v. Mounika Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mounika Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Gd Textile Rep by its Prop Piyush Dharamchand Shah versus Hdfc Bank

Canara Bank versus Magen Roto Printers

M/S. Uco Bank versus Aurora Scientific and Technological Institute

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Nadeem Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Sri S. Nadeem Shuieb

Mrs. Iris Joseph and Others versus M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd. and others