Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Karengular Soumyalatha

DRT2 Jul 2025OA/460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs.23,06,392.55 along with future interest and costs against three defendants, holding that the bank substantiated its claim.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.23,06,392.55 with future interest @ 12.95% p.a. from 01.02.2024 and costs.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Karengular Soumyalatha — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 2NDDAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.46O of 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

Union Bank of India, Vavilalapally branch, Vavilalapally, Karimnagar Mandal and district, TS - 505 212. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1.. Mrs. Karengular Soumyalatha, w/o A. Suresh, aged about 41 years, occ: employee, R/o H.No.10-6_326, kisan nagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar district - 505 001.

¶8

Mr. Aakunuri Suresh, s/o A. Komuraiah, aged about 37 years, occ: employee, R/o H.no.10-6-326,

¶9

kisan nagar, Karimnagar,

¶10

Karimnagar district - 505 OO1.

¶11

Mr. Thungapally Shankar, s/o T. Kistaiah, aged about 44 years, occ: employee, R/o H.No.1-114, Arepalli, Karimnagar, Karimnagar district, TS - 505 OO1.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

ffi,".i fis,n,uffi,n" ;::{i"i[fl'ffi:; W,'#'

Sri N.V. Subba Raju

Expa rte

(oA.N0.460 of 2024)

ORDER

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,O6,392.55ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Six thousand Three hundred Ninety two and paise Fifty five only) with future interest @ 12.95olo p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @2olo from 0t.L2.2024 tnl the date of realization.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Appricant Bank states that defendants no.1 and 2 are principal borrower and co-borrower and defendant no.3 being guarantor avaired term roan of Rs.25.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated Lg.OB.2O22. The defendant no.3 being the guarantor executed guarantee agreement and letter of undertaking dated 19.08.2022. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA and legal notice was issued on 20.05.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

'a J. Defend-a1ts called absent and set exparte on 21.04.2025.

¶21

Applicant Bank examined aS AW. documents, which are u,/ JUL ?w * marked as Ex.A.1.-t, 4.t2. " $rn"oro.,c i\ic,i:]

¶22

(OA.No.460 of 2024)

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the oA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶25

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.12. 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 entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶26

B. In the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶27

The Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to^{pay to the} Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,O6,392.55ps^{(Rupees Twenty} Three Lakhs Six thousand Three hundred Ninety two^and paise Fifty five only) with future interest @ 12.95olo P.a from 0L.t2.2024till the date of realization ;

¶28

Bank is also entitled to proceed against the^person defenda nts towards realization of the debt due. {$ The k is entitled to the costs of the OA. 82 m rus

¶29

(OA.No.460 of 2024)

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P,A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2"dday of luly, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

tt Jl[m i..
Wr.-s9

TR[}E COW,,.
A IKGV^
rrr(iffim,
OFI.I,HYDEAEB^D

¶39

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Karengular Soumyalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Karengular Soumyalatha

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Banothu Nilima versus State Bank of India

Nagolu Gopal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Karur Vysya Bank versus Sri. a. Sita Rama Rao

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Rai Srinivas

.Mr.Syed Hajee Hussain and Another versus State Bank of India

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr. Ravvarapu Vishnu Vardhan