Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Gamyam Technologies Private Limited

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues owed by Gamyam Technologies Private Limited and related individuals, the Presiding Officer, noting the defendants were absent on summons, examined the applicant's evidence affidavit and documents. The court held the claim was clinched and allowed it, holding defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amo

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,99,66,000/- with future interest; claim secured by mortgaged properties; recovery certificate to be issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Gamyam Technologies… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 639 OF 2024

¶6

Union Barik of India., Jubilee Hills Branch Plot No.226, Road No.17 lawahar Colony, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad - 500034.

¶7

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶8

.....Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s. Gamyam Technologies Private Limited., Represented by Managing Director Mr.Adepu Rajendra Prasad Registered Address at 6-3-1099/7/14 & t5 6th Floor, 603, Lake Melody Towers Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad - 500082.

¶11

Mr. Adepu Rajendra Prasad

¶12

S/o. Rajamallu, Major, Occ: Business Male, R/o.1-67/3, Near Ramalayam Mandapalli, Kothapeta Mandal

¶13

East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 533223.

¶14

Also at:-

¶15

R/o.1't Floor, Shreyas Mansion Adjacent to the Park Hotel, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082.

¶16

Mrs.Adepu Sirisha AIias Chintam Srisha W/o. Adepu Rajendra Prasad R/ o.l-67 / 3, Near Ramalayam Mandapalli, Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 533223.

¶17

Arso at:/f,V**

¶18

oA.NO.639/2024

¶19

R/o.1't Floor, Shreyas Mansion Adjacent to the Park Hotel, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082.

¶20

Mrs.Chintam Maha Lakshmi Manikyam W/o.Vijaya Krishna Mohan Rao Major, Occ: Business, Female R/ o.l-67 /2, Near Ramalayam Mandapalli, Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 533223.

¶21

Mr. Chintam Vijaya Krishna Mohan Rao S/o. Venkata Ramayya, Major Occ: Business, Male, R/o. l-67/2 Mandapalli, Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 533223.

¶22

... Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the Applicant Defendants

¶24

: Mrs. V.Dyumani & Co.,

¶25

:Ex-parte

¶26

:: :: [f,[!-R

¶27

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,99,66,000/- i.e., a sum of Rs.1,81,63,000/towards SOD A/c.No.021831100001194 with future interest @15.05o/o^p.a. and a^sum of^{Rs.18,03,000/-towards UGECL 1.0} Ext A/c.No.021816990000053 with future interest @8.50o/o^p.a. from the defendants jointly and severally with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule^properties.

¶28

Summons sent to D1 returned with endorsement unclaimed hence, deemed to be served, whereas Summons served on D2 to 5. They were set ex-parte on 25.04.2025 as called absent and no representation. ffi^a'r'

¶29

oA.NO.639/2024

¶30

The Applicant Bank examined K.Soumya Deepika, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 44 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.44.

¶31

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. perused the materiar praced on record.

¶32

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶33

Whether the Appticant Bank is entiiled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedute properties?

¶34

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupred with the recitars in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.44 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the craim of the Appricant Bank against the DeFendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severaily riabre to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶35

In the result, the present Original Application No.639/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶36

i) The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,99,66,000/- i.e., a sum oF Rs.1,81,63,000/- towards SOD A/c. No. 021831100001194 and a sum of Rs.18,03,000/- towards UGECL 1.0 Ext A/c.No.021816990000053.^, with future /M....>e /./^{t,-^'"u'} ...

¶37

oA.NO.639/2024

¶38

¶39

interest @11.20olo^{p'a' simple from the date} of application^{till the date of realization;}

¶40

the OA^{claim is secured by way of mortgage} ii) of^{properties described in the schedule} annexed^{to the OA and the applicantbank is} entitled to^{proceedagainstthe same to} realise^{its debt;}

¶41

iii) the^{applicant bankis also entitled to proceed} against the^{person and propertiesof} defendants^{for realization of its dues;}

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

g. Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶45

lo.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open courton} this the 25th^{DaYof JulY,2025).}

¶46

Ow'* (RhMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Gamyam Technologies Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Gamyam Technologies Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Milligram Laboratories

Central Bank of India versus Lachu Cement Bricks Unit

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammed Tahir

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)