Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals

DRT7 Jul 2025OA/449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application by Union Bank of India. The court held the bank proved its claim via unchallenged evidence and deed documents since respondents failed to adduce evidence or cross-examine witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered to pay Rs.1.32 Crore with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties and other assets.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.449 ol 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Branch office at Rotary Nagar, Khammam - 507 002.

¶7

Represented by its Authorised officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals, Represented by its Proprietor,

¶11

Koduru Sunil Kumar,

¶12

Office at H.No.Il-4-72/2,

¶13

2ndfloor,Bynagar,

¶14

Nehru Nagar, Khammam - 507 001.

¶15

Also at

¶16

R/o H.No.5-12-155,

¶17

Srinivas colony, BTS Near Forest Office, Nalgonda town & District - 508 001.

¶18

Also at

¶19

H.No. 1 1-9-156, Lenin nagar, NSP road, Khammam - 507 001.

¶20

un il Kumar, thnam, aged about yea rsf business, male,^.ff'Jm" 155, ,^{BTSNear Forest}

¶21

o l^.ff'Jm"

¶22

(OA.No.449 of 2024)

¶23

Office, Nalgonda town & District - 508 001.

¶24

Also at :

¶25

OFFice at H.No.Il-4-72/2, 2ndfloor,BYnagar, Nehru Nagar, Khammam - 507 001

¶26

Also at

¶27

H.No. 1 1-9-156, Lenin nagar, NSP road, Khammam - 507 001. Defendants

¶28

Counsel for the Parties:

¶29

For the Applicant : SmtTaranginiPisipati

¶30

For the Defendants : Sri ArunMarripeddi

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,32,OO,89O.4Ops (Rupees One Crore Thirty Two Lakhs Eaght Hundred Ninety and paise forty only) with interest @ 12.80% p.a with monthly rests from 08.tt.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶33

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank dant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by d" /0Y its proprietor cum mortgagor availed term loan * 5h$^{vide sanctionletter dated} 29.04.2023. The loan SrlRgl[4mro^ra : "'"^{securedby hypothecationof plant & machinery,} fu-s:::

¶34

(oA.No.449 of 2024)

¶35

Vehicle, capital goods and movables more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendants executed term loan agreement, demand promissory hote, letter of continuity etc. The defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned property in favour of Applicant bank and deposited the title deeds dated 04.0s.2023.

¶36

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 on 29.L0.2024 and issued recall notice dated 12.11.2024.Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.1,32,OO,89O.4Ops (Rupees One Crore Thirty Two Lakhs Eight Hundred Ninety and paise forty only) with interest @ t2.B9o/o p.a with monthly rests from Og.tl.2OZ4 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶37

The Defendants No.1 and 2 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants denied the execution of and hy pothecation of machinery and also denied the fl4' * ule property. It is contended that the loan arantee agreement dated 31.10.2019 were not J^o l'flif"ff"ⁱ rtl*{ properly stalfr'prp1-ped and not admissibl e i n evidence. It is submitted by

¶38

.,',.,...--..

¶39

(OA.No.449 of 2024)

¶40

the defendants that they were regular in repaying the loan amount and denied the classification of account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines and contended that the OA is neither maintainable nor tenable. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶41

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Ms. MalladiSameera, Senior Manager as AW.1 and through her marked 14 documents as Ex.A.1 to A. 14. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert her Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 17.06.2025.

¶42

I have perused the documents^placed on record.

¶43

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶44

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

¶45

To what reliaf ?

¶46

(OA.No.449 of 2024)

¶47

As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very crear that the defendants have avaired roan from the Appricant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are crearry mentioned in the statement of account fired by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they have not hypothecated the machinery and movables and also failed to establish that the schedule property was mortgaged in favour of Applicant bank.

¶48

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their riabirity is ress 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 coupred with recitars Ex.A.1 to A.14 stood unchailenged and unrebutted. The Appricant bank crearry estabrished that the defendants are riabre to pay the oA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶49

'w
#$
tre resu lt, resent Original application is allowed with costs as
d,$

¶50

1OA.No.449^{of 2024)}

¶51

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant

¶52

Bank a total sum of Rs.1,32,OO,89O.4Ops (Rupees One Crore Thirty Two Lakhs Eight Hundred Ninety and paise forty only) with interest @ L2.B1o/o p.a from 08.11.2o24till the date of realization;

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

t2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶59

.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on ,²⁰²⁵⁾

.{S
IF
: otI&m :
O*l

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals

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

Kanaparthi Prabhakar Rao versus State Bank of India

Sri Radha Krishna Agro Industries versus Union Bank of India

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Filling Station Others versus Union Bank of India

Mr.Duduku Prabhakar versus State Bank of India

Banoth Ramesh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mr Chukka Shashidhar versus Axis Bank