Allowed

Union Bank of India v. kamalakar

DRT15 Dec 2025OA/379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originating Application filed by Union Bank of India against two borrowers/guarantors for recovery of Rs. 28.54 lakhs under the SARFAESI Act, confirming joint and several liability and directing the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 28,54,969.66 with future interest; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus kamalakar — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SRt GUMMADT cOpICHAND, PREStD|NG OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 379 OF 2O2S

¶3

Between:

¶4

Union Bank of lndia, Gandhi Chowk Branch, Khammam Branch - 2, Khammam -507 OO2.

¶5

Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Puchakayala Kamalakar,, S/o. Puchakayala Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, Male R/o. H.No. 10-6-40t3112t1, 1st Lane, Venkateshwara Colony, Burhanpuram, Khammam,

¶9

Telangana - 507 001

¶10

Kongara Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Kongara Seetha Ramaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. S-1 -666t2t302, Sri Venkateshwara Enclave, Kaviraj Nagar, Khammam, Telangana - SOT OO2 Defendants

¶11

(oA. No. 3791202s)

¶12

Counsel for the parties :

¶13

For TheApplicant	TaranginiPisipati
FortheDefendant	Exparte
Reservedon	12.12.2025
Pronouncedon	15.12.2025
Uploadinwebsiteon	15.12.2025

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2g,54,g69.66 ps. (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred sixty Nine and paise sixty Six onry) with future interest @ 12.2s% p.a with monthry rests 01.08.2025 tiil the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of Hypothecated Movabres and Mortgaged^properties as mentioned in the schedures of Properties A, B and C to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a Borrower/Mortgagor and Defendant No. 2 stood Applicant Bank contended that the lity of Rs.25.00 Lakhs with interest rests and executed Agrearfienr.;oateh: 8.03.2024 in favor of the

¶17

(oA. No. 3791202s)

¶18

Applicant Bank. The defendants no. 1 and 2 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedules of properties B and C to the OA and executed documents in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No.2 stood as a guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 28.03.2024 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 14.03.2025 and issued Demand notice dated 06.08.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 lo the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

¶20

Sri. T. Chandra Bhan Singh filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendants No. 1 and 2. Even after the lapse of 45 Days WS of Defendants No.1 and 2 not filed and hence the right of filing of WS of Defendants No. 1 and 2 forfeited on 05.12.2025.

¶21

Sri. K. Goutham Alexander, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 lo A.12.

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

(oA. No. 37el202s)

¶25

The point that arise for consideration IS whether the Applicant bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶26

Defendants no. 1 and 2 did not fire their ws even after avairing sufficient time and hence the right of filing of ws of Defendants No. 1 and 2 forfeited. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A. 12. rn view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entiiled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶27

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

¶28

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2g,54,g69.66 ps. (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine and paise Sixty Six Only) with future interest @ 12.2s% p.a 01.0g.2025 til the date of rearization

¶29

¶30

is entitled to proceed against the MortgagedProperties mentioned to the OA towards realization of the 5 DEC ?

¶31

(oA. No. 379/202s)

¶32

'10. The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 1 and 2 towards rearization of the debt due.

¶33

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA

¶34

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶35

'13. lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to. the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15rh day of Dec, 2025)

¶38

sd/-
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESID!NG OFFICER

¶39

f**

¶40

{''l-

Union Bank of India v. kamalakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. kamalakar

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Agro Industries

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Mohammed Abdul Baseer

Katta Raj Vinay Kumar versus State Bank of India

G Aditya versus India Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Markonda Naidu Prathapaneni versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sri Sai Granite Exports