Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Eppa Narendra

DRT10 Jul 2025OA/73/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's recovery application against three defendants for a total loan default. The bank recovered two parking loan defaults, household loans, and a vehicle loan with interest. The defendants were found jointly and severally liable, and the bank was entitled to proceed against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.23,51,337.20ps with future interest at applicable rates. The bank is entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants personall

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Eppa Narendra — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.73 OF 2O2S

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Medak .branch, Near Rythu bazar, Opp to GKP gardens, Medak, Medak district, TS. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Eppa Narendra, S/o EppaSudhakar,

¶10

Aged about 37 years, occ: business, Male, R/o H.No. 1-9-12l3/E,

¶11

Krishna Nagar colony, Medak - 502 110.

¶12

Mr. EppaMahendra, s/o EppaSudhakar,

¶13

aged about 40 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.No. 1-9-12l3/E, Krishna Nagar colony, Medak - 502 110.

¶14

Mr. Sampath Kumar Itikala, s/o E. Lakshmaiah, major,

¶15

occ: business, male, R/o H.No. 10-lB,Hanumanveedhi, office, Medak - 502 110.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Sri V. SethuMadhava Rao Exparte

¶18

(oA.No.73l202s)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,51,337.2Dps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and paise Twenty only) i.e.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.23,06,322.66ps withsubsequentinterest @ 11.10o/o p.a(9.10o/o t 2o/o penal ) with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.13,385.32ps with subsequent interest @ 13.40olo p.a(ll.4lo/o t 2o/o penal ) with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶23

c) A sum of Rs.31,629.22ps with subsequent interest @ 360lo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 and 2 are borrower and co-applicant and .3 stood as^guarantor availed housing loan of^Rs,21.00 - .ildl r$r k laKhp for^p house and executed demand^{promissbrynote,} * !^{potflpffi afrAement, consent for disclaimer and consent for} s !.f, discloser of -fiformation to CIBIL.^{The defendants1 & 2 created} a^.1:' L: ..^-. ..,1t. z

¶26

¶27

(oA.No.73l202s)

¶28

mortgage of schedule property and deposited original Regd sale deed no'5009/2019 dated 01.08.2019. Defendant no.1 arso availed vehicle loan for purchase of 2 wheeler for a sum of Rs.1,40 rakhs and also availed credit card facility.After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 26.I2.202t and demand notice was issued on L8.0L.2022, Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 30.06.2025.

¶30

Sri D. Sunder Prakash, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.20.

¶31

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank.}

¶32

The^point that^{arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is} entitledforthec|aimmadeintheoAagainsttheDefendantsas prayed for?

¶33

Defendants remainedexparte.^{To substantiate the case of the} nk, AW.1,^{officialof the ApplicantBankwas examined} relevant documents^{as Ex'A1 to A'20' In view of} that the^{Applicant Bank has established their claim}

¶34

\ [^{$!E fl6',"'}

¶35

(oA.No.73l202s)

¶36

made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶37

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,51,337,2ops (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and paise Twenty only) i.e.,

¶38

a) A sum of Rs.23,06,322.66ps withsubsequent^interest @^9.10% p.a(from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶39

b) A sum of Rs.13,385.32ps^{with subsequent interest @ 11.40%} p,a from date of application till the date of^realization ;

¶40

c) A sum of Rs.31,629.22ps^{with subsequentinterest @ 360lo} p.afrom date of application till the^{date of realization} ;

¶41

The Applicant^{bank is} entitled to^{proceed against the mortgaged} in the schedule^{to OA towards realization of}

¶42

property as mentioned the debt due;

¶43

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person
of defendants towards realization of the debt due'
Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA'
Trre nppl
lP tt' ,;-l
1O J|JT
1ls
!\ \gt<l d,
t'.(
- 'r-:.. ,,,un 4

¶44

(oA.No.73l202s)

¶45

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶46

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of luly, 2025)

¶49

sdl-

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

ffi":>

¶52

(

¶53

o#i'i,?oEnr's':-

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Eppa Narendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Eppa Narendra

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

D Bikshapathi versus The Sundaram Home FinanceLtd

Pasula Chandrashekar versus Union Bank of India

B N Ramgopal versus Idbi Bank

Canara Bank versus Mahanandi Siva Shankar Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Methari Sathish

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Roshini Dendukuri