Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Vaddalapu Srilatha

DRT15 Oct 2025OA/380/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This debtor recovery tribunal allowed an OA filed by Union Bank of India against husband and wife defendants for recovery of an outstanding housing loan sum of Rs. 82,67,041.44 with interest via sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 82,67,041.44 plus interest; bank entitled to realize debt from mortgaged property and defendants' other assets; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Vaddalapu Srilatha — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15rH DAy OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.38O of 2O25

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Khammam -2 branch Office at PB no.55, Gandhi chowk, Khammam - 507 003. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mrs. Vaddalapu Srilatha, w/o V. Rammohan,

¶10

aged about 53 years, occ: business, female,

¶11

H.No. 1 1-9-38/A, Ooha Residency, Burhanpuram, bus depot road, Khammam - 507 OO1.

¶12

Mr. Vaddalapu Ram Mohan S/o V. Yakaiah, aged about 55 years, Occ: business, male, H.No. 11-9-38/4, Ooha Residency, Burhanpuram, bus depot road, Khammam - 507 001.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the^parties:

¶15

For the Applicant : Sri N.V.^pruthvi Raju For the Defendants : Exparte Reserved on 13. 10.2025 Pronounced on 15.10.2025 " Uploaded in website.gf; .r0.202s ffi

¶16

(oA.No.380/202s)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1' The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.g2,67,O4l.44ps (Rupees Eighty Two Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand forty one and paise forty four only) with interest @ 11.20olo p.a (inclusive of penal interest @ Zvo) with monthry rests from 01.09.2025 tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedure to OA.

¶19

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendants are wife and husband who avaired housing loan of Rs.g5.50 lakhs on 06.12.2018. The defendants created mortgage of schedule mentioned property and deposited title deeds in favour of Applicant bank. After avairing the roan facilities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NPA on 07.05.2025 and recall notice was issued on 05.0g.2025, Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 13.10.2025.

¶21

Sri K.G. of the Applicant Bank examined himself nt documents, which are marked as Ex.A. b A.8rj^15ficT7fft5

¶22

(oA.No.380/202s)

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶25

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶26

prayed for?

¶27

7' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW. 1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.g. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶28

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.g2,67,O4l.44ps (Rupees Eighty Two Lakhs Saxty Seven Thousand forty one and paise forty four only) with interest @ 9.20o/o p.a from 01.0g.2025 till the date of realization;

¶29

Applicant Bank is entitled io proceed against the mortgaged the schedule to OA towards realisation of

gl$t due.

1 5 0CI 'tt?5

(oA.No.380/202s)

10' The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due.

¶35

The Appricant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶36

L2. The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from of receipt of order.

¶37

the date

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

L4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P'A- transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of Oct, 2025)

¶41

sdl-

¶42

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

150[I2ffi

¶44

iT'fifrry
"3":-';'ffi'\o

¶45

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Vaddalapu Srilatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Vaddalapu Srilatha

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

Smt Kethe Swathi versus Development Credit Bank Ltd.

P Bala Rathnam versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ramireddy Nanda Kishore

Smt. S.N. Vani Ram, and others versus Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company Limited

kousar Sultahna versus Karnataka Bank Limited

M S Vasudeva Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India