Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Durga Automotives

DRT11 Nov 2025OA/756/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presiding Officer allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of loans. The Defendants were declared jointly and severally liable to pay the dues and future interest. The claim was held secured by mortgages on the schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 32,92,69,726.73 with future interest and costs. Claim secured by OA schedule properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TII DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), 1.4.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGiNAL APPLICATION No: 756 OF 2025

¶6

Union Bank of India., Ashok Nagar Bra nch Near Ambedkar Bhavan, Ashok Nagar Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh - 515001. Rep. by its Branch lYanager.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Sri Durga Automotives., A Partnership Firm, Rep by its Managing Partner, Off: 77-l-266, Gooty Road Ananta pur District, Andhra Pradesh-515001.

¶10

Sudha Venkateswara Rao

¶11

S/o. Late Sudha Ramaiah Also lvlanaging Partner of M/s. Srl Durga Automotives, Aged about 73 Years Occ: Business, Male, R/o. H.No.13-2-140 Shiridi Nagar, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh-515001.

¶12

Sudha Rajyalakshmi

¶13

Wo.^{Sudha Venkateswara Rao} Aged about 66 Years, Occ: Business, Male R/o. H. No.13-2- 140, Shiridi Nagar Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh - 515001.

¶14

Sudha Uma Maheswara Rao S/o. Sudha Venkateswara Rao Aged about 49 Years, Occ: Business, Male R/o.H.No.13-2-140, Shiridi Nagar Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh - 515001.

¶15

Sudha Rajesh, S/o. Sudha Venkateswara Rao Aged about 49 Years, Occ: Business, Male R/o. H. No.13-2- 140, Shiridi Nagar Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh - 515001. /h,,z.c-

/// Kx\r'

t_,

...Defendants

oA.NO.756/2025

Counsel for the^APPlicant

¶21

: Ms. Tarangini PisiPati

Defendants

:Ex-parte

::^{qLqE-.lL ::}

The Applicant Bank^{flled the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.32,92,69,726.73ps^{as on 30.06.2025i.e', a sumof} Rs.26,96,23,300.85ps^{towardsLoanA/c.No.147715010000005} with interest @11.40%^{p.a., a sum of Rs.11,03,323/- towards} Loan A/c. No.147716390000003^{with interest @12.15o/o P a , a} sum of Rs.1,96,526l-^{towardsLoan A/c. No.147716390000007} with interest @12.150/o^{p.a., a sum of Rs.4,74,86,306'88ps} towards Loan A/ c.No.^{L477 76390000004with interest@1 2.650/o} p.a. and a sum of Rs.1,08,60,270l-^{towards Loan} Alc.No.l47716390000006^{with interest @12.25o/op.a. from the} defendants^jointly and^{severally with monthly rests fromthe} date of appllcation till^{the date of realizationalong with costs} and in default^{for saleof OA scheduleproperties.}

¶26

Summons sent to^D1 to^{5returnedwith endorsement} unclaimed hence,^{deemedto be served.They were set ex-parte} on 16.10.2025 as called^{absentand no representation.}

¶27

The Applicant Bank examined^{Matam Charan Kumar,Assistant} Manager, as AW-1 and^marked 43^{documentsthrough himas} Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.43.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the^{Applicant Bank.Perused the} materlal^placed on record.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration

¶30

oA.NO.756/202s

¶31

¶32

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule ProPerties?

¶33

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.43 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶34

In the result, the present Original Application No.75612025 is allowed as under: -

¶35

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.32,92,69,726.73ps as on 30.06.2025 i.e., a sum of Rs.26,96,23,300.85ps towards Loan A/c. No. 147715010000005, a sum of Rs.11,03,323ltowards Loan A/c.No.L47776390000003, a sum of Rs.1,96,526/- towards Loan A/c.No.1477 t6390000007, a sum of Rs.4,74,86,306.88ps towards Loan A/c. No.147716390000004 and a sum of Rs.1,08,60,270l- towards Loan A/c. No. 147716390000006; with future interest @11.40olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date ol rcalization'/fu\9 U,-rrrr"_

¶36

oA.NO.7s61202s

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly.}

¶43

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open court on} thisthe 11th^{Day of} November,2025).

¶44

A*_^_,rO /^(/'-'nrr\r>' (K{MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Durga Automotives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Durga Automotives

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dharam Singh

M/S. Canara Bank versus Mdh Bikes

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Kiran Granites and Minerals

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Varikuppala Sathish

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Challa Raghupathi Reddy

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Chetpally Rajam