Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Baddam Ravinder Goud

DRT3 Jul 2025OA/82/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application by Union Bank of India for recovery of a mortgage loan default amount from the defendants, holding the bank established its claim through documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.40,94,074.10 p.a. with 15% p.a. interest; Applicant entitled to realize debt from mortgaged property and general assets.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.82 OF 2025

¶5

Between :

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr.BaddamRavinderGoud, s/o BaddamSatyanarayanaGoud, aged about 45 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.2-2-293/L,^plot no.39, Western part, Old Nagole village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500 068.

¶10

Mrs.BaddamSravanthiGoud, W/o Baddam RavomderGoud, aged about 38 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.2-2-293/t, plot no.39, Western part, Old Nagole village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Distrtct - S00 068.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Sri V. Ilender

¶13

f"t"fii,Ttffi' :
Sfo.,,.,,*4.
's{loygri .t r:'

Expa rte

(OA.82 of 2025)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4O,94,O74.1Ops (Rupees Forty Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Seventy Four and paise Ten only) with further interest @ 15olo 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.

¶18

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. Defendants No.1 & 2 executed necessary loan documents on 24.0L.2015 infavour of Applicant bank. Defendant no.1 created mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the schedule property in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2024 and demand notice was issued on 28.L0.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

: IrJULzms

¶20

(oA.82 of 20251

¶21

Sri C. Santhosh VenkatRao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶24

Defendants remainedexparte, To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.14. 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 Applicant Bank ls entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶25

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶26

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.4O,94,O74.1Ops (Rupees Forty

¶27

ur Thousand Seventy Four and paise Ten only)
h;,.'ffiu,.i,3 @ 15olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the
o0,g "rgp"ffitio#

¶28

(oA.82 of 2025)

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the OA.

¶32

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

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

¶36

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

IBrJq^{coP</sup> -, r ) o4t*t'o5'-}

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Baddam Ravinder Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Baddam Ravinder Goud

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

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 Narender Goud

Kanaparthi Prabhakar Rao versus State Bank of India