Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Kanaka Durga Transport

DRT17 Jul 2025OA/312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a loan. Having failed to cross-examine the bank's witness or file rebuttal evidence, the defendants' liability was decided based on unchallenged documentary evidence. The bank is entitled to the claimed sum with subsequent interest and proceeds against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Decree for Rs.67,11,506.14 plus subsequent interest at 13.95% p.a. from 23.05.2022; authorizing realization via sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kanaka Durga Transport — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE lTrH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.312 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Khammam Bus station complex Branch, Khammam, Khammam

¶7

District, Telangana State -507 002.

¶8

Represented by its Senior Branch Manager

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

M/s, Kanaka Durga Transport, Situated at #17-3-188/1, panjab Gadda, Ramavaram, Kothagudem, Bhadradridistrict , TS- 507 11g. Represented by its sole proprietor

¶12

Mr. Gaddala Ramesh

¶13

Mr. Gaddala Ramesh, s/o GaddalaMallaiah, aged 32 years, occ: business, R/o 4-138, Balapeta, Ballepalli, Khammam dist, TS - 507 002.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

: Sri M.V.S.^prasad

¶18

f.sF-.:Enetlelenoonts lgE:ltreQgf€ndants : Sri K.R. Vijay and Associates '-i :r.;''-_, 6f,.:-'-'',n*.\s oRDER

¶19

Bank fited the present oA against Defendants for 1. *\fit ^m[a\ 1 i #tot#v orX'',1to,u, sum of Rs.31,81,5o2l- (Rupees Thirty one

¶20

One Thousand Five hundred and Two only) with

¶21

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

¶22

future interest @ 10.800/o p.afrom date of this oA tiil the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated vehicre as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed loan of Rs.4O.OO lakhs under CGTMSE/ MSME for purchasing Ashok Leyland Bus for transport business on 28.10.2022. The defendant no.2 executed demand promissory note, hypothecation of vehicle agreement and interest agreement on 28.10.2022 in favour of applicant bank. The defendants hypothecated the Ashok Leyrand bus more fuily described in the schedule to OA in favour of applicant bank. The defendants agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 months with an EMI amount of Rs.89,327l- per month.

¶24

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedure, as such the account was crassified as NpA and issued notices. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar claim of Appricant aSAinSt defendants is of Rs.31,9L,SO2/_ (Rupees Thirty One .'1r..: .::^. ..,-'ri,. ,;1_.+';la.x1S#41tlxone^{Thousand Five hundred and Two only) with} j.'rir .:,.rr pA\ futrs+ intereR S to.Boozo p.a from date of this oA tiil the date of , "e' 1! l: 1 ftd&t?ffi.^{r+pnce tne} on. \rI .. .: ^:: 1'.^'r '\ rh -E_^<- \i'- 1r'^i,1 2 \ , \. ,I1 'ql.'{,'.-' - ',_i \ ,\ /lrs "/,r\rir -.-1, /i-r -{, {.1r1}..iaL!"^-a:. . \ t;r;r:t'{ .t.l'r \it**r=;-;:4.'

¶25

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

¶26

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and hypothecation of schedure property. It is submitted by the defendants that they were regular in repaying the loan amount and denied the crassification of account as NpA without fo'owing the RBI guiderines and contended that the oA is neither maintainable nor tenable. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶27

3' The Appricant Bank in support of its craim, fired evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Burra Ashok, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 9 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.9. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their beharf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert her Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants faired to fire evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 04.07.2025.

¶28

I have perused the documents placed on record.

its claim as made in

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

ii) To what relief ?

Point No.i):

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides For establishing that they have not hypothecated the schedule propefty and also failed to establish that the schedule property was mortgaged in favour of Applicant bank.

¶34

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing the creation of mortgage of schedule property. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.9 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the oA amount to the bank. T'-f^{- i{} PPint No.

¶35

71 7ln;hhe2ffiult,A present Original application is allowed with costs as

M-S'

(OA.No.312 of 202a1

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.67r111506.14 (Rupees sixty seven Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred six and paise fourteen only) with subsequent interest @ 13.95olo p.a from 23.0s.2022 till the date of realization;

¶40

B. The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated machinery and mortgaged schedule properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

L2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the lTth day of July, 2025)

¶47

.,,,6ffi
li 1t rur ?ms lii
ew,#

¶48

sd/-

¶49

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Kanaka Durga Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Kanaka Durga Transport

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

T Parthasaradhi versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds

Chethi Rajkumar versus Icici Bank Limited

Dhansingh Hari Singh versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bandaru Srinivasa Rao

M/s a P Glass Company versus Union Bank of India