Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kaduru Sunil Kumar

DRT28 Aug 2025OA/453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues of ₹69,42,998.07 plus interest and costs from the defendant, who availed a home loan. As the defendant forfeited his rights to file written statement, adduce evidence, or argue, the court held the evidence unchallenged and granted relief.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.69,42,998.07 with interest; proposal for auction/impartible sale of mortgaged property considered; costs allowed.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kaduru Sunil Kumar — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 453 OF 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India., Kukatpally Branch, Plot No.324 Ground Floor, Road No.4 Opp Ravindra Bharthi School, KPHB Colony Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072. Rep by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

Mr. Kaduru Sunil Kumar, S/o. Kaduru Nagaratnam, Aged Major, Gender Male Max Life Hospitals , 8-8-407 /7 Plot No.A/529, Champapet Road Sairam Nagar Colony, APSRTC Officers Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad - 500079.

¶9

.... Defendant

¶10

Cou nsel for the Applicant : M/s.Alluri Krishnam Raju Cou nsel for Defenda nt : No Representation

¶11

:: CLLLL& ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.69,42,998.07ps as on 06.12.2023 from the defendant with future interest @9.45olo p.a. with monthly rests from 07.72.2023 till the date oArealisation along with costs and sale /'r1*- ,, ^c

¶13

OA schedule property. / /,/'-/^.i'-" >$j:'t

¶14

oa.4s312024

¶15

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that the defendant availed Home Loan from the applicant bank vide sanction letter dated 08.07.2022. The defendant created mortgage by deposit of title deed in respect of OA schedule immovable property as security to the loan. Defendant executed necessary loan documents. After avalling loan facilities, the applicant bank informed the defendant that his loan declared as NPA on 23.09.2023. The defendant committed default despite several demands and failed to regularize the accounts despite of demand notice dated 25.09.2023. As the defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues, the present OA is filed.

¶16

Defendant entered appearance through his counsel Mr.Arun Marripeddi, but he did not choose to file written statement. Accordingly, defendant right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 25.04.2025.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Parameshwar Rao, Chief Manager as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to EX- A- 11.

¶18

Defendant right of adducing evidence was forfeited for no representation vide docket order dated 12.06.2025-

¶19

Heard the Learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Defendant right of advancing arguments forfeited on 07.08.2025. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendant and OA schedule propefty? OW*Y

¶22

oA.4s3l2O24

¶23

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, after availing loan faclllties, the defendant committed default in repayment despite demand notice. Hence applicant bank is entitled to the OA claim considering the documents exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.ll through AW.1 and the recitals therein.

¶24

As stated supra, though defendant entered appearance through his counsel, defendant did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Accordingly, defendant right was forfeited. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that the defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the applicant bank with future interest and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.453/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.69,42,998.07ps with future interest @9.45olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proce-e, against the same to realise its debt; ffi>q

¶28

oA.4S3l2024

¶29

iii) the applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceed} against the^{person and properties of} defendants for^{realizationof its dues;}

¶30

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶31

The Applicant^{Bankis directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of^{receipt of this Order.}

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate^{according ly.}

¶33

Communicate^{a copyof this order to the partiesconcernedand} upload in Web^{Porta l.}

¶34

(Dictated to the steno, signed and^{pronouncedby mein theopencourton thisthe28rh} day of August,^2025.)

¶35

¶36

MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESID]NG OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kaduru Sunil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kaduru Sunil Kumar

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

gattameni vijay srinanth versus Union Bank of India

Yele Mallesappa versus Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

Dudekula Raja Hussain versus Bank of India

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Supreme Batteries

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Cepro Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Yammanuru Lakshmamma