Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Baddam Narender Goud

DRT3 Jul 2025OA/81/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the objecting application filed by Union Bank of India against respondents for recovery of a loan amount of Rs.58,61,433.63 with interest, holding that the bank established its claim through documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the objectioning application for recovery of Rs.58,61,433.63 with 4.75% p.a. interest; granted costs and right to proceed against mortgaged property.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Baddam Narender Goud — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.81 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch, Siddiamber bazar, Hyderabad - 500 002. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applica nt

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr.BaddamNarenderGoud, s/o BaddamSatyanarayanaGoud, aged about 40 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.2-2-293/t, Plot no.39, Eastern part, Old Nagole village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500 068.

¶10

Smt. Baddam Priyanka, D/o BaddamSatyanarayanaGoud, aged about 33 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.2-2-293/t,^plot no.39, Eastern part, Old Nagole village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Matkajgiri District - 500 068.

¶11

Mr. BaddamRavinderGoud, Slo.Badda m Satya na raya naGoud, 42 years, occ: business, R-293/1,^{Plot no.39,} ld Nagole village, edchal-Malkajgiri

¶12

r 3'iiiilh

¶13

Defendants

¶14

(OA.No.81 ot 2025)

¶15

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

Sri V. Ilender

Exparte

ORDER

1, The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.58,61r433.63ps (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs sixty one Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three and paise sixty Three only) with further interest @ t4.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendants no.1 and 2 availed the mortgage loan of Rs.70.00 lakhs on mortgage of schedule mentioned property. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor and executed letter of guarantee dated 21.05.2015 guaranteeing the due repayment of loan amounts. Defendant no.1 created mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the schedule property in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilit.y,.the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction,

¶21

ia"fue"q"Ngpplicant *^{bank classified the account as NpA on} "'f ;ffi, ;N demand notice was issued on 28. to.2oz4. rnspite

¶22

t *
[lSJUL'Itr
$1.

¶23

(OA.No.81 of 2025)

¶24

of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 02.06.2025.

¶26

Sri C. Santhosh VenkatRao, Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶27

examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A. 15.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶30

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶31

Defendants remainedexparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A. 15. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest

¶32

and costs.

¶33

present OA is allowed with costs, as under: are jointly and severally liable to pay to the

¶34

total sum of Rs.59,61,433.63ps (Rupees Fifty

¶35

¶36

(OA.No.81 of 2025)

¶37

Eight Lakhs sixty one Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three and paise sixty Three onry) with further interest @ t4.7so/o p.afrom date of filing of oA till the date of realization ;

¶38

The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶39

The Applicant Bank is arso entiiled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the oA.

¶41

1,2, The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me ln the open court on this the 3'd day of July, 2025)

¶45

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

TRUE GOPY
CIe{EA?--

¶47

DRT.!, HyD.E1.^RAn.

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Baddam Narender Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Baddam Narender Goud

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

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Karengular Soumyalatha

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr. Ravvarapu Vishnu Vardhan

Bank of India versus Sri Mannepuli Santhosh Nag

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Filling Station Others versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Baddam Ravinder Goud

Kanaparthi Prabhakar Rao versus State Bank of India