Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mandulla Yadagiri Prasad

DRT20 Feb 2025OA/79/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a housing loan sum with interest. The court found the evidence unchallenged due to the respondents' failure to file a written statement or adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs.59,08,636.80 with future interest at 7.05% p.a. OA claim secured by mortgage. Recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Mandulla Yadagiri Prasad — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPL]CATION NO,79 OF 2024

¶3

Union Bank of India Dwarakpuri Colony H. No.6-3-347/9/4 Hydera bad Telangana- 500 082 Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶4

....Applicant.

¶5

And

¶6

Mand u lla Yadagiri Prasad S/o lY- Jagayya Aged about 38^years Occ: Employee.

¶7

Tanqadapa lly Sumalatha W/o lY. Yadag iri Prasad Aged about 34 yars Occ: Employee

¶8

Both R/o Flat No. 105 Liketha Enclave Hydersha h kote Near Kendriya Vlhar Apartments Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 017.

¶9

Also at:

¶10

H. No. 2-16, Kametta Village chevella Mandal Near Govt. School Ranga Reddy Dist. Telangana-501 503.

¶11

Also at: 9-48, Ganesh naga r Shankarpa lli

OY**

oA.7912024

Rangareddy Dist.501^203. Also at: Flat No. 303, Block^No.3 3'd Floor, Fort View Buildlng Hydershahkote Vlllage Bandlaguda Jagir MuniciPality Gandipet lvlanda^I Ranga Reddy District Telangana - 500 008. ..... Defendants.

¶16

Counsel for Applica nt : Ms. Tarangini PisiPati. counsel for Defendant No.1^: No representatlon. Defendant No.2 : Expa rte.

¶17

:: ORDER ::

¶18

The Applicant Bank Rled the^{present OA for the recoveryof a} sum of Rs.59,08,636.80Ps from the^{defendantswith further} interest @11.50o/o^per annum with^{monthly restsfrom} 07.OL,2024 till the date df^{realisation along with costsand sale} OA schedule^property.

¶19

The averments of applicant bank as^{per the OA, briefly, are that} defendants are borrowers and they^{availed a housing loan of} Rs.52 lakhs by executing requisite^{loan documents and} Memorandum of Deposit of Title^Deeds of^{the OA schedule} property. Defendants failed to adhere to the terms of^loan agreements in^paying the^{EMIS. Accordingly, loan account was} classified as NPA on 79.06.2022,^{followed by demand notlce u/s} 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. However, defendants^{failed to pay} the outstanding dues. Hence the^present oa,QS-n>g

¶20

oa.7912024

¶21

Though defendant No.1 entered appearance through Advocate, Mr. A. Bhaskar, did not choose to file written statement. Hence his right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 09.09.2024.

¶22

Defendant No.2 was set exparte vide docket order dated 02.07.2024 for there being no representation on her behalf despite summons.

¶23

Applicant Bank examined S. Venkata Naresh, Branch Head, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1to Ex. A.11.

¶24

1't Defendant's right to adduce evidence was forfeited on 06.01.2025 for there being no representation.

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. lst Defendant's right to advance arguments was forfeited on 09.01.2025 for non-representation. Perused the material placed on record.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that defendants did not pursue the case either by filing written statement or adducing evidence or advancing arguments. Therefore, applicant bank is entitled to the OA claim in view of evidence aFfidavit of AW.1 coupled with recitals in Exhibits A.1 to A.11. Accordingly, learned counsel^prayed for allowing the OA clain in favour of the applicant bank and against the defenda nts.

¶27

The^point that arises for conside rarion ist- /rysyt,

¶28

oA.7912024

¶29

whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the OA^{ctaim against the} Defendants and^OAschedule propertY?

¶30

As stated^{supra, of the two defendants,1st defendants has not} pursued the case^{except enteringappearancethrough his} counsel.^{Whereas,2nd defendant remainedexpartedespite} summons.^{Under such circumstances, the EvidenceAffidavitof} AW.1 coupled^{with the recitalsin documents viz'' Exs'A'1 to} A.11 marked on^{behalf of the Applicant Bank remains} unchallenged^{and unrebutted and thus clinchesthe claim of the} Applicant Bank^{againstthe Defendants'Hence I foundthat} defendants^{1 and 2 are liable to pay the claimmade by the} Applicant^{Bank in the O'A. with future interest and costs'}

¶31

TI. In the result,^{the present Original ApplicationNo 7912024is} allowed^{as under: -}

¶32

defendants^{are liable to pay a sum of}

¶33

i) Rs.59,08,636.80Ps^{to the appllcant bank with} future interest @7.05%^{per annumsimple} from the date^{of application till the date of} realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim^{is secured by way of mortgage} of^{propertydescribed inthe schedule} annexed to the^{OA and the applicant bankis} entitled to^{proceed against the same for} recovery . ot its^debv /nv/^t'J /r/ <-ls.\

¶35

¶36

oA.7912024

¶37

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

¶38

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶39

t2. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order,

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

L4. Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned and upload on Web Portal.

¶42

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20'h day of February,2025).

¶43

//1t"yt--.^aog

¶44

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mandulla Yadagiri Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mandulla Yadagiri Prasad

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

Chavasuresh Babu versus Union Bank of India

Smt Putha Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Industries.

Union Bank of India versus Dakireddy Buchi Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Shri Vardhini Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr.Massa @ Masa Srinivas