Allowed

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) v. Mrs. Daruru Saraswathi

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/420/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues against three defendants. The court held that defendants failed to substantiate their pleas with evidence despite documentary proof being unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 40,98,368.48 with interest and costs; bank entitled to proceed against scheduled properties.

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

,'ORTGTYAL,

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18th DAy oF DEcEtvlBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^{(Hons.), M.A.} PRESIDiNG OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 42O OF 2024

¶5

Union Bank of India, (e-Corporation Bank), #256/7C Kadiri Road, Bathalapa lli-515661, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶6

....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Mrs. Daruru Sa raswathi,

¶9

W/o Naga Seshanna,

¶10

Female, aged 36^years,

¶11

1/68, OC Colony,

¶12

D Cherlopalli, Bathalapalli Village,

¶13

Ananthapur District - 515672, A.P.

¶14

2)Mrs. D Ratnamma @ Naga Ratnamma, W/o D Subbarayudu,

¶15

Female, lvlajor,

¶16

D Cherlopalli, Bathalapa lli,

¶17

Anantha^pur District- 515661,^A.P.

¶18

3)lvlr. Daruru Obula^Naidu, S/o Daruru Chinna VenkatapPa, l4ale, aged 44^years,

¶19

1-68, D Cherlopalli, BathalaPalli, Ananthapur District - 515661,^A.P.

¶20

.... Defendants

¶21

Counsel for the ApPlicant : Mr. Srinivasa Rao Chakrala Counsel for the Defenda^nts

oa.42O12024

:: O-LD.LL^::

The^{ApplicantBank filed the presentOA u/s 19 ofThe Recovery} of Debts^{& BankruptcyAct, 1993 for recovery of a total sum of} Rs.40,98,368.48^{ps/- i.e.; defendantno 1 to pay Rs' 98'35360 ps} with interest @10.400/o^{p.a. due in accountno' 560381001697361and} defendantnos.lto3jointlyandseverallytopayRs'40'00'014'88ps due in account^{no. 560931000299421with lnterest@ 11'90o/op a';} with monthly^{rests from the date of appllcation till the date of} realisatlon^{alongwith costs and in defaultfor sale of moveableand} immoveable^{OA scheduleproperties'}

¶26

The brief^{avermentsof the applicant are that defendants availed} ACGSTloanofRs.g6,OOO/-onO3'03'2Ol4byexecutinghypothecation agreementandAGCTLofRs2O,OO,OO0/-repayablewithagreedrateof interest. Defendants^{executed loan documentsandsecurity} documents.^{Due to irregutarities in re-payment of the loan in spite of} repeated^{requests,a demand notice dated 04 'O4 '2024 was issued} followed by a^{legal noticedaled!2'O4 '2024'As the defendantsfailed} to clear the^{outstandinq dues,the presentOA is flled for recoveryof} debt.

¶27

The defendant^{no 3 right} to file written^{statement forfeitedvide} docket order^{daled 25.04.2025} AS called absent^{and no representation} despite service^{of notice.}

¶28

Defendant^{no.1 filed written statement and defendantno2} adopted the^{same' Defendants deniedthe OA averments and the} resultant OA^{ctaim. The defendantsaver that the applicantbank} sanctioned^{Rs.96,000/- and Rs 20 lakhs @ 8'59o p a on 03 04 2017 for} the the^purpose of^{horticulture;however the} "ort''Zwjicreased

¶29

oa.42012024

¶30

interest rate to 10.95olo^{p.a. The applicant bank took theirsignatureon} the blank documents by^{receivlng the pattadar passbooks and other} title documents. The defendants^{are not aware of defendantno 3 being} the personal^{guarantor. They did not receive any demand notice dated} 4.04.?024 and legal^{notlce dated72.04.2024'The applicantbank} cannot^proceed against^{the agricultural land in SARFESIproceedlngs'} The outstanding^{amountthat applicantis claimingis factually incorrect} as well as they were^{not givenany opportunityto repay the loan} amount. Hence it^{is requestedto dismiss the OA and allowthe} defendant to^{pay the loan by way of instalmentswithreasonable rate} of interest.

¶31

The^APPlicant Bank examined^{N. Sreenivasulu, Assistant} marked 23 documents^{through him as Ex A l} lvlanager as^AW-1and to Ex. A.23.

¶32

The right^{of defendants to adduce evidencewas forfeited on} 15.10.2025^{after affording ample opportunity'}

¶33

Heard the^{learned counselfor the applicantbank' The right of} defendants^{advancing argumentswas forfeitedon 26'11 2025after} affording sufficient^{opportunity.Perusedthe writtenargumentsRled} for the applicant^{and the material broughton record'}

¶34

According to^{learned counsel for the applicant bank'after} availing the^{credit facilities, the defendants committed default in} repayment as^{per agreed terms, despite repeated requestsand} demands. The^{claim of the appllcant is amply proved by the} documentsexhibitedasExS.A.ltoA.23throughAW'landtherecitals therein. The^{defendantcould not establish anything contrary to the}

¶35

oA.42Ol2024

¶36

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-}

¶37

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled for the OA claim} against the^{Defendantsand OAschedule} hy poth ecated / mo^{rtg a ged prope rti es?}

¶38

As stated supra,^{the defendantsexcept making bald statementin} the written statement that^{they did not receive anydemand notice, not} given chance to repay the loan, being^{charged higherinterest rate,the} claim is false, signatures^{were obtainedin the blank documentsetc.,} they failed to substantiate their^{pleas by adduclng evidence or by} confronting the witness of the applicant bank^{by way of cross} examination as to disprove the^{veracityofthe Exs.A.1 to A.23. It is} settled law that mere statement without^{sufficient evidence is of no} avail. On the other hand, the applicant^{produced documentsand} marked them through AW-1 as^proof of its claim. Under^such circumstances, the evidence affidavit of AW-1 coupled with^recitalsin Exs.A.1 to A.23 remains unchallenged and un-rebutted.^Hence, I^hold that the Defendants 1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to^{pay to the} Applicant Bank the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶39

In the result, the^present Original Application No.420l2024 is allowed as under: -

¶40

i) The Defendants 1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the:Applicant Bank a total sum Rr.qt.1r,3<c.a^{(pj of} Ks.499!,3!!!q-PB^{i'e', defendantno.1to} I.",*.kJ as F, d.ri^er^^{pay Rs.98,353.60 ps towards accountno.} I n:,.., a"u) zg/,vlt f( 560381001697361 with and defendant no. 1 ' to 3 iointly and severally to pay /ztlY-,*S^as.40,00,614.88^{ps towards account no.} (-7 AX'l- 560931000299421; together with interest @ 70o/o p.a. simple from the date of application ti the date or redizatiofr$\tz

¶41

oA.42012024

¶42

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage and hypothecation of OA Schedule A and B Properties and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt under respective accounts /from respective defendants as (i) above;

¶43

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues under respective accounts /from respective defendants as (i) above;

¶44

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶45

L2. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶46

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

L4. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶48

(Typed to my dictation Qyr the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the TBth day of December, 2025.')M

¶49

(RAMESHWAR |(OTHE) PRESIDING OFFICEIi

¶50

-__

¶51

-_-.--

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) v. Mrs. Daruru Saraswathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) v. Mrs. Daruru Saraswathi

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 Mr. Bandar Chand Basha

Kontham Padmavathi versus Vardhaman Mahila Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Sri. Avinash Pasumarthi

Ms Om Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises and Others versus Union Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Dara Pragna Prathyusha

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sri Sr Fly Ash Bricks