Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Chitibala Manohar Reddy

DRT26 Nov 2025OA/68/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WAIA.68.2024, the DRT-II, Hyderabad allowed the Union Bank Of India's application under Section 19 RDB Act. The court held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 27,33,949.70 with future interest and costs, as the defendants failed to rebut the bank's evidence. The mortgage charge was specifically upheld for realization of dues.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.27,33,949.70 with future interest at 11.90% p.a. from the date of application till realization, costs awarded, and authority directed to issue Re

Union Bank of India versus Chitibala Manohar Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

iN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB.^{(HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 68 OF²⁰²⁴

¶5

UNION BANK OF INDIA, Bathalapalli Brach Ananta^pur, Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Branch Manager

¶6

......"Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chitibala Manohar Reddy, S/o. C Pulla Reddy,

¶9

Aged: Major, Occ: Business

¶10

Address for service of Notices:

¶11

H. NO. 1- 34, O.C. Colony, MUSTURU VILLAGE Bathalapally Mandalam, Ananthapur^(Dist), Andhra Pradesh-515661

¶12

Madireddy Jayarami Reddy, S/o. Iul Naraya Reddy,

¶13

Aged: lvlajor, Occ: Business

¶14

H. No, 4.44, GUIVIIYALAKUNTA^ViIIAqE, Bathanapally Mandalam,

¶15

Ananthapu r (Dist), Andhra Pradesh-515661

¶16

...... Defendants.

¶17

: Mr. P. Balaii Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defendants : Mr. A. Raiu

¶18

-: q-B-Q-E-B:-

¶19

The applicant fi ed the^{present OriginalApplicationu/s.19of the} Recovery of Debts and^{Bankruptcy Act, 1993for recovery of a sum of}

¶20

oA.N0.58/2024

¶21

Rs.27 ,33,949.70ps from the Defendants 1 and 2^jointly and severally with costs and future lnterest @13.90%^p.a. with monthly rests from 01.01.2024 till the date of realization and for sale of OA schedule property.

¶22

The case of the Applicant Bank, in brief, the erstwhile Corporation Bank now merged with Union Bank of India-Applicant Bank herein, granted the defendants an Agricultural Term Loan with a limit of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Union Green Card^(UGC) KCC(Corp Loan) with llmit of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 28.06.2022, Debt Swap Scheme of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 26.12.2022 and Kisan Tatkal Loan of Rs. 50,000/- 0n 2A.12.2022. Credit facilities are secured by hypothecation of the crop and simple mortgage of the OA schedule agricultural property. The defendant was irregular in repayment of the loans due to which the applicant bank declared the loan account as NPA and sent a legal notice dated 08.09.2023. Applicant bank made several requests and demands to pay the same to regularize the accounts, but the defendants did not choose to do the same. Hence the present OA is filed for recovery of outstanding amount with interest and costs.

¶23

The defendant No.1 filed Written Statement which has been adopted by the defendant No.2. The defendants deny of OA averments as the alleged debt was already cleared. The OA is barred by limitation. The simple mortgage was created on 08.10.2015 whereafter crop loan of Rs.10 lakhs was transferred to formers on 24.06.2022 and 26.72.2022 without knowledge of farmers. The applicant's claim of Rs. 27,33,949.70 ps is inflated due to illegal charging of high rate of interest. The OA is liable to be dismissed. ?l".. ,q ' ,/ -lt

¶24

OA.No.68/2024

¶25

¶26

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined Nagasamudram Sreenivasulu, Assistant lvlanager as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through him as Exhibits A.1 to A.19.

¶27

Evidence affidavit flled by the 1't deFendant Chittibala Manohar Reddy with no documents.

¶28

Heard the Learned counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant's reported no oral argument. Perused the written arguments filed^for the defendants along with the material^placed on record.

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:-

¶30

Whether the Applicant Bank has^proved its claim against the Defendants and the OA schedule property as prayed?

¶31

According to learned counsel appearing for the applicant^bank, defendants having availed the crop loan and other^{facilities, failed to} discharge the liability in spite of repeated^{requests.ExhibitsA.1 to} A.19 marked through AW-1 amply^prove that the defendants^availed credit facilities but failed to repay the same.^{The outstanding amount} due from the defendants works out to^{Rs.27,33,949.70psas on} 07.O1.2024. Defendants filed written statement.^Except stating^that the debt was already cleared, no claim is^{pending, OA} is^barredby limitation, loan was disbursed to individual farmers, they are^not liable to pay any debu defendants have not^chosen to^{mark any} documents to substantiate their^{pleas nor have theychosento cross-} examine AW-1 to disprove the^veracity of^{Exs.A.1to A 19 materlal} papers relied on by the Applicant Bank. Under these circumstances, the evldence of AW-1 coupled with recitals^{in Exs.A.1 to A.19 remains} unchallenged and un-rebutted and accordingly OA^{deserves to be}

¶32

OA.No.68/2024

¶33

allowed holding that defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay OA claim with future interest and costs.

¶34

In the result, the present Original Application No.68/2024 allowed with costs, as under:-

¶35

i) the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.27,33,949.70 ps, with future interest @11.90o/o p.a. simple, from the date of Application till the date of realization;

¶36

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for realization of its dues; and

¶37

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realisation of its balance dues; and

¶38

iv) the applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

t2. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶42

(Dictated to the Steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26'h day of November,2025)-

¶43

Lq ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Chitibala Manohar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Chitibala Manohar Reddy

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Budithi Vijaya Rao

Union Bank of India versus Sri Boyapti Adinarayana Chowdary

M/S. Indusind Bank Limited versus M/S. Vaishali Enterprise

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now versus Soujanya Sukhavasi

Idfc First Bank Limited Now versus Sri Nidhi Carbonic Gases

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now versus Kancharla Srinadh