Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Nadeem Enterprises

DRT22 Sept 2025OA/592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application recovered the outstanding loan amount leaving interest and costs, and directed issue of a Recovery Certificate. Defendants were represented but did not file written statement.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.44,71,419/- with future interest; proceeding against mortgaged property allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Costs awarded.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Nadeem Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 592 OF 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India., Branch at 7-2-16, DL Road 02021, Hindupur Branch - 515201. Rep by its Chief lvlanager. .... Applica nt

¶6

And

¶7

N4/s. Nadeem Enterprises., Rep by its Proprietor Sri S.Nadeem Shuieb, S/o. Sri Sunar Aslam Basha, Age about 42^years Occ: Business, 76-Lt-25, Tippukha n Street, Hindupur, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh - 515201.

¶8

Sri S.Nadeem Shuieb, S/o. Sri Sunar Aslam Basha, Age about 29^years Occ: Business, 16-11-25, Tippukhan Street, Hindupur, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh - 515201.

¶9

Sri Shaik Mohammed Zaibulla S/o. Shaik Mohammed Saifu lla Age about 47 Years, Occ: Not Known 16-8- 12, Tippukhan Street Hindupur, Sri Satya Sai District Andh ra Pradesh - 515201.

¶10

.... Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal

¶12

Counsel for Defendants resentation Konto

oa.59212024

:: qLLEE ::

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.44,77,4t91- from the defendants^jointly and severally with future lnterest @13.50o/o p.a. with monthly rests from 72.77.2024 till the date of realisation along with costs and sale OA schedule^property.

¶17

The averments of applicant bank as^per the OA, briefly, are that the Defendants availed cash credit loan facility for running business in whole sale and retail trade from the applicant bank vide sanction letter dated 12.04.2023. Defendant No.2 is the guarantor. Defendants created mortgage by deposit of original title deed in respect of OA schedule immovable property as security to the loan. Defendants executed necessary loan documents. After availing loan facilities, the applicant bank informed the defendants that their loans declared as NPA on 26.08.20?4. The defendants committed default despite several demand and failed to regularize the accounts despite in spite of legal notice dated 16.11.2024. As the defendants failed to clear the outstanding dues, the^present OA is filed.

¶18

Defendants entered appearance through his counsel Mr.T.Nagendra, but they did not choose to flle written statement. Accordingly, defendants right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 77.O4.2025.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Md.Wasim Firoz, Chief Manager as AW-1 and marked 21 documents thlo_ugh him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.21. //fr>to* ((/ s-

¶20

oA..s9212024

¶21

Defendants right of adducing evidence was forfeited for no representation vide docket order dated 09.07.2025.

¶22

Heard the Learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Defendant right of advancing arguments forfeited on 18.07.2025. Perused the material placed on record.

¶23

fhe point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entided for the OA claim against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, after availing loan facilities, the defendants committed default in repayment despite demand notice. Hence applicant bank is entiued to the OA claim considering the documents exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.21 through AW.1 and the recitals therein.

¶26

As stated supra, though defendants entered appearance through his counsel, defendant did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Accordingly, defendant's right was forfeited. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.21 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that the defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the applicant bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

in the result, the present Original Application No.59212024 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally tiaOle to plfo the Applicant Bank a sum of (/ry""*

¶29

¶30

0a,s9212024

¶31

Rs.44,71,419/- with future interest @10.15% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

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 proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶33

iir) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entltled for the costs.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost l4emo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web Porta l.

¶38

(Dictated to the steno, si8ned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day ofSeptember, 2025.)

¶39

Y*F ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Nadeem Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Nadeem Enterprises

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

Ms Gd Textile Rep by its Prop Piyush Dharamchand Shah versus Hdfc Bank

Canara Bank versus Magen Roto Printers

M/S. Uco Bank versus Aurora Scientific and Technological Institute

Union Bank of India versus Mounika Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Sri S. Nadeem Shuieb

Mrs. Iris Joseph and Others versus M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd. and others