Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sri. J. Vijay Ranjeeth Kenchey

DRT8 Dec 2025OA/515/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by the bank for recovery of Rs.20.38 lakhs with future interest. Being an ex-parte proceeding, the court held the defendants jointly and severally liable based on marked documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs.20,38,823.64 plus future interest and costs; OA claim secured by mortgage; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. J. Vijay Ranjeeth Kenchey — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY DArED rHrs rHE osrH #:::::.,Jl.l:loo,'u*'oo PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR Ko,I o^.rrorrlnotirur'at?',^{L' LB (Hons.), M.A.}

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 515 oF 2025 Union Bank of India _. Moosapet Branch, Hyderabad. Kep. Dy its Authorized Signatory.

¶3

.....Applica nt.

¶4

Versus

¶5

:frj i: Vjjay Ranjeeth Kenchey :{o...^{AnjanayKenchey, Aged about} 5l^years, R/o. H. No.3_5_ i 11 Hat N0.303, Gupta Towers, Narayanaguda Hyderabad - 5OOO29.

¶6

Smt. Deepika R. Kenchev

¶7

Wo. J.. Vijay Ranjeeth Kenchey Aged about 46 years, R/o. H.No.3_S_111 Il:jl::lo:,^{c_upta rowers, r,tarayanasuoa} Hyoerabad^_ 500029.

¶8

...Defendants

¶9

Cou nsel for the Applicant

¶10

DeFendants

¶11

Mr. P. Naga Durga prasad

¶12

Ex-parte

¶13

:: oRDER ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.20,38 ,A23.64ps from the defendants joinuy and severally with future interest @1go/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property. /Aw./,:!q, (-/^q'-

¶15

oA.NO.515/2025

¶16

Summons^{served on D1 and 2 throughpaper publication'TheY} were^{set ex-parte onO4'Og'2025 as called absent and no} representation'

¶17

The Applicant^{Bank examined B Rajitha' Legal Manager'as AW-} l and^{marked 27 documentsthroughher as Ex A lto Ex'} A.27 .

¶18

Heard^{the Ld' Counselfor the ApplicantBank Perused the} material Placed^{on record'}

¶19

The^{point that arises for considerationis:-}

¶20

Whether^{the AppticantBank is entitled} for the^{claimmade in the OA against} the Defendants^{and OA schedule} ProPertY?

¶21

As^{stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitalsin the documents} viz., Exs. A.1^{to A.27 markedon behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the^{claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I^{hold that the Defendants are jointlyand severallyliable} to Pay the^{OA claim to the Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶22

In the result, the^{present OriginalApplication No'515/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.20,38,823.64ps with future^interest Ow"o

oA.NO.51s/2025

@10.25olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

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 entiued to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronorn.lJ uf ," in the open court on this the 08th Day of December, 2025).

¶34

OW* (M[4ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

Union Bank of India v. Sri. J. Vijay Ranjeeth Kenchey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sri. J. Vijay Ranjeeth Kenchey

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

Similar cases

Kishore Singh Nayal versus LIC Housing Finance Limited

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Siddharth Engineers

Bank of India versus Sri. Chekuri Nagavenkatarama Raju

Donthi Reddy Venkateswar Reddy versus Inida Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus P. Balakrishna

State Bank of India versus Krishna Polymer Technology