Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Yarlagadda Nagender Rao

DRT12 Dec 2025OA/606/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues from two farmers who defaulted on agricultural loans. The court adjusted a partial payment against the claim and ordered interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay the balance sum of Rs. 30,07,735/- with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Yarlagadda Nagender Rao — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 506 OF 2024

¶4

Union Bank of India

¶5

(Formerly Andhra Bank) Branch at 401326, lst Floor BRP Complex, Kurnool Branch Park Road, Kurnool Town & District, A.P Rep. by its Branch Manager

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Yarlagadda Nagender Rao S/o. Y. Seetha Ramaiah Age Major Occ Agriculture D 7-53, Pedda Thandrapadu (V), Rajoli Mandal, Vaddepally, Jogulamba cadwal District - 509135, Telangana

¶9

Mr. Y. Venkat Ramana S/o. Y. Seetha Ramaiah Age Major, Occupation Agriculture D 7-53, Pedda Thandrapadu (V), Rajoli Mandal, Vaddepa y, Jogulamba Gadwal District - 509135, Tela nga na

¶10

... Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. V. Raghu

¶12

Counsel for the Defendants : Shri. B. Ravi Shankar fu,*o&

OA.^{No. 606/2024}

:: ORDER::

The Appticant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum} of Rs.30,00,735/-^{from the defendants jointly and severally i e'' an} amount^{of Rs. 8,72,285 90ps with futureinterest@ 11olop a towards} CKYC-1^{account no560941000178355 and anamountof} Rs.21,28,448^{85ps with futureinterest rate of 10 250lowith half-yearly} rests from^{date of application till the date of realisationalong with} costs, and^{in default, for sale of O Ascheduled moveableand} immoveable ProPerties'

¶17

2.^{The averments as per the applicationbriefly' are that the} defendantno.lhasbeenavailingagriculturaltermloanunderKisan card Scheme^{from the year 2007onwards againstmortgageof} properties^{as describedin the OA schedule'He availed agricultural term} loan of^{Rs'20,OO,OOO/-on 15'02 2017 for construction of watertank} and^{pipeline. The defendantalso availed CKYC loan-2of Rs 20'00'000/-} on 29.03.2021^{These loansare securedby hypothecation of property} describedinoAschedule-A,personalguaranteeofdefendantno.2and extensionofmortgageoveroAschedule-Bproperties.Afterpaymentof Rs.g8,g22/^{- and Rs'2'41'256l- on Zg'032024' there was no further} payments^{received Due to irregularity in repayment' the appticant bank} issued^{a legal notice dated L5':j.'2024'As the defendant failed to clear} the dues,^{the present OA hasbeen Rled'}

¶18

Defendant^{no'1 and 2 filed written statement stalir|g' interalia'} that 1't^{defendant availedtwo agriculturalloans and had been paying} instalments^{regularly'The bank sanctioned loans basedon previous} good track^{recordHowever' due to recurring natural calamitiesduring} 2OZZ-2O24,^{aoricultural output was adversely affectedtherebycould} on not^{pay instatments on schedure. However,} ^ffi:*'"''000/-

¶19

OA. No.606/2024

¶20

¶21

27.12.2024. Defendants appeal for^{restructuring of the loan, waiver} of penal interest and fresh repayment schedule as^{per RBI guidelines}

¶22

K. 4. In order to prove its case, Applicant^{Bank examinedby} Chandra Sekhara Achari,^{BranchManager,as AW-1 and marked} 25 documents through him as^{Exhibits A.1' to A.25.}

¶23

In substantiation of his^{pleas, Y. NagenderRao-1'tdefendant} examined himself as DW- 1 and^{marked no documents.}

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant^{bank. Defendants'} right of arguments were forfeited^{for non-representationvidedocket} order dated 74.77.2025.^Perused the^{written argumentsfiled by the} learned counsel for the applicant^{bank alongwith the materialbrought} on record.

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the^{applicant bank,after} availing the agricultural loans by^{executing necessary loandocuments,} extending mortgage over the^{OA scheduleproperties; they neglectedto} repay the loan amount due^{to whichtheiraccount was classified as NPA.} Learned counsel further submitted that^{subsequentto filing of the OA} the defendants^{paid Rs.} 9,60,000/- on^{27.L2.2O24and subsequently} closed the CKYC-1 No. 560941000178355;^{and duesare pendingonly} in CKYC-2 account. Learned counsel sought to^{allow the OA accordingly} by considering the evldence of^{AW-1coupled with recitalsof Exs.A.1 to} A.25 marked through him.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled^{for the balance} OA claim against the Defendants and 94^schedule properties? /f\1'.rt'e (,r/

¶28

OA, No.605/2024

¶29

¶30

The defendants have not denied^{availingof agricultural term loan} from the respondent^{bank (e-Corporation Bank),not denied creation of} mortgage or default in^{payment. The main reason for such defaultis} stated to be natural calamlties^{such as droughts/floods/untlmelyrains,} Covid-19^{pandemic and resulting drasticfall ln income. Thedefendants} also^paid an amount of^{Rs.9.60 lakhs subsequentto filing of OA. The} admission of default, reasons thereof^{and subsequentpayments} demonstrate lhe bonaflde^{conduct of the defendant. No doubt,Exs A.1} to A.25 marked through^{AW-1amply provethe claim of the applicant} bank against the defendants^{and OA scheduleproperties. However, the} borrowers being in agricultural^{field, the earnest gestureon behalf of} the applicant bank can be to^{considerthe request of borrower for} reschedulement, if the business^{policyor guidelines permit.}

¶31

Whlle observing so, I hold that the^{evidence affidavitof AW-1} coupled with the recitals in^{Exhiblts A.1 to A.25 remains unchallenged} and unrebutted. Accordingly, the^{OA deservesto be allowed,holding} that the defendants are^{jointlyand severally liable to pay the balance} oA claim after adjustlng Rs.9,60,000/-^{paid by defendantson} 27 .72.2024, along with future^{interestand costs'}

¶32

In the result, the^{present OriginalApplication No.606/2024is} allowed as under:^-

¶33

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum^{of Rs.} 30,O0,735/- with^{future interest rate of 70.25o/o} with future interest simple from the date^of application till the date of realization^and Rs.9,60.000/- paid by defendants^on 27,L2,2O24 shall be adjusted accordingly;

¶34

ii) the OA clalm is secured bY way^of hypothecation of OA schedule-A^propertyand mortgage of OA schedule-B^{propertiesfor} realization of its balance dues and the^applicant bank is entitled to Droceed aqainst the^sameto realise its debq '4i-- / '/' 'tt\

¶35

OA. No.606/2024

¶36

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^properties of the

¶37

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court^on this the 12th day of December, 2025) .

¶42

Br+$e

¶43

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Yarlagadda Nagender Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Yarlagadda Nagender Rao

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

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Vaibhav Textiles and Readymades

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Moparthy Constructions

M/S. Canara Bank versus Smt. Chalama Lakshmi Devi

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri Vadde Harish, S/O Saraiah Vadde

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Tanniru Bala Ashok

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Nadamuri Anil Kumar