Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sri Jerpla Ramjee

DRT8 Aug 2025OA/401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of a loan amount from two defendants. The court found the defendants liable after weighing evidence and dismissed their plea of payment and limitation. Relief includes recovery of principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs 1,00,33,534.98 with interest at 10.80% p.a. from 01.10.2024. Recovery certificate issued. Applicant allowed to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties.

Uco Bank versus Sri Jerpla Ramjee — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL'IAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THrs rHE^{8rH DAY oF AUGUsr, 2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.4O1 of²⁰²⁴

¶5

Between:

¶6

UCO Bank, Abid Circle branch, #5-8-600 to 604,^{t't floor,} Mubarak Bazar,^{Abid circle,} Hyderabad -^{500 001, TS.} Represented^{bY its ChiefManager} And Authorised^officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri JerplaRamjee, s/o Sri RedYaJerPla,^{aged major,} occ: doctor,^{H .No.3'2214,} street no.^{1 1, Venkateshwara colony,} Saroornagar,^{HYderabad- 500 035'} Ranga ReddY^district.

¶10

Also at

¶11

Flat no.301,^{Sri Sai ComPlex,} Road no.5,^{Vaidehinagar,} VanasthaliPuram,^{HYderabad- 70'}

¶12

Also at

¶13

H. No.7- 3^-49 IMN/27 f^L ,.-"-;' : ':-*'k:-^-'i:': ::^' l.:^{-.-, :lt-'li'} ''lr:': Mallikarju na^{Nagar,' ))"'} ";r'-r";;i. 1.r. " t''.:.:..h,\ Block no.2,^{road no.7ri"-} rt ," "'t\ Sagar Ring^{road, Ng.Qr} tl? F Hyderabad -⁵⁰

¶14

(oA.No.401 of 2024)

¶15

SmtRamavathBhagyaLakshmi, w/o Sri JerplaRamjee. aged major, occ: service, H.No.3-2214, street no. 1 1, Venkateshwara colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500 035. Ranga Reddy district.

¶16

Also at

¶17

Flat no.301, Sri Sai Complex, Road no.5, Vaidehinagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 70.

¶18

Also at

¶19

H.No.7-3-49/MN/27 /t, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Block no.2, road no.7, Sagar Ring road, Near Pochamma Temple, Bairamalguda, Yashodaranagar, Hyderabad - 500 079.

¶20

Defendants

¶21

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Smt K, Nandini Reddy

Defenda nts

Sri J. Chinna

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,OO,33,534.98ps (Rupees One Crore Thirty Three thousand Five Hundred Thirty Four and

¶28

paise Nin )^{with future interest} @^{10.80o/o p.a with} monthl 24 till the date of realization and in

¶29

j ootrloa6 : W,*#'

¶30

(OA.No.401 of 2024)

¶31

default for sale of mortgaged^properties as described^{in the schedule} to OA.

¶32

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 and 2 availed Term loan of Rs.1,13,00,000/- dated 06.09.2019 against mortgage of schedule properties. The defendants executed all necessary loan documents such as demand promissory note, letter of waiver,agreement relating to term loan, interest agreement, and letter dated 17.09.2019. The defendants created equitable mortgage in favour of Applicant bank by depositing original title deeds vide memorandum of deposit of title deeds bearing documents no.6354/2010 dated 06.10.2010, sale deed document no.7O72/20L0 dated 09.11.2010 and Regdrectification deed document no.773l/2010 dated 04.12.2010. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued demand notice dated29.OB.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total clalm of Applicant against defendants is of Rs,1,OO,33,534.98ps (Rupees One Crore Thirty Three thousand Five Hundred Thirty

¶33

Four and paise Ninety Eigq!.pnly) with future interest @ 10.80% the f realization. Hence the OA. J^oortlrzrrffi rt1 e" W'##

¶34

(oA.No.401 of 2024)

¶35

The Defendant No.1 &2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that no documents were filed by defendants 1 and 2 and thatthe defendant did not create equitable mortgage in favour of Applicant bank.It is further contended that the defendants signed on blank documents under the compulsion of Applicant bank. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 but not filed any docu ments.

¶36

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶37

Heard the arguments.

¶38

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶39

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶40

ii) To what relief ?

¶41

Point No.i):

¶42

Sri B. Murali Krishna, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.22 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish

¶43

(oA.No.401 of 2024)

¶44

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants.^{Even though} defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1,^{his evidence is in} noway helpful to him. The defendants having taken the^{plea they} made payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 and 2

¶45

Point No.ii)

¶46

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶47

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,O0,33,534.98ps (Rupees One Crore

¶48

Thirty Three Five Hundred Thirty Four and^paise

¶49

Ninety Ei re interest @ 10.80% p.a from 01.10.20 n. * : oettluTr'2s ry

¶50

(OA.No.401 of 2024)

¶51

The Applicant bank is entitled^to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA towards^the realization of the debt due.

¶52

The Applicant bank is also^{entitledto proceed against the person} and^properties of defendants^{towards realization of the debtdue.}

¶53

The Appliaant Bank is entitled to the^{costs of the OA'}

¶54

The Applicant shall file a cost memo^{within two weeksfrom the date} of receipt of order.

¶55

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order^{to the parties concerned.}

¶57

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by^{me in the opencourton} this the 8th day of Aug'2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPICHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

: i;.
i,{
00rl,cm

.:..-' r ,.; ii I --,,,;,-

Uco Bank v. Sri Jerpla Ramjee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sri Jerpla Ramjee

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Pranav Infra Projects

State Bank of India versus Sri Ravi Kiran Kamath

State Bank of India versus Sri Raghavendra Traders

Uco Bank versus Sri Jerpala Ramjee - Mohan Multispeciality Hospital

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Bazaru Arun Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Balaji Industries