Allowed

Union Bank of India v. S Jagannath Reddy

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/875/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the ex-parte defendants' lack of response and held them jointly liable. It adjudicated the bank's Original Application, ordering payment of the principal sum with future interest, costs, and recovery through attached mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly liable to pay Rs.53,15,206/- with future interest; claim secured by mortgage properties; Bank entitled to costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus S Jagannath Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN^{THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD} t'' " '- rHE^{22ND DAYoF luLY' 2025} Joo 'HIs LB'^{(Hons )' M A'} pREsENr: J"^o"'n,XRli&Fr.#'L

¶2

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATION NO: 875 OF 2023}

¶3

.....APPlicant'

¶4

l:lhf"l[";'.'il'j.lf,l??',Lil3l3'iil;'

¶5

	Versus
'	3;jl?""ll3i'-XEli)^*"o'u:o.. occ:Business,^HNo'//1zu- ;;;i;;-N;e";,^{radcherra- soe3o1'}
	Alsoat:- 3OT.SSLalithaHomes -<iiirnanqt,at,HYderabad-500079'
2.	S.Venkat^Reddy S/o.Hanumanth^{Reddy, Aged 38Years} occ:Business,^{H.No 1-3-8214} Rajendranagar,^{Mahabubnagar- 509001'}
3	.Smt. S.Manjula^Devi w/o.ShriS.Venkat^{Reddy,Aged Major} H.No.1-3-82/4,^{Rajendranagar} Mahabubnagar-509001. ...Defendants
	Counselforthe Applicant :M/s.P.Balaji
	Defendants :Ex-parte
	:: Q-[-[f!- ::
1.	TheApplicantBankfiled the^presentOAfor therecoveryatotal
	sumofRs.53,15,206/-frcmthedefqndants^jointlyand /F-4,$ ./ >-

¶6

oa,NO.A75/ 2023

¶7

severally with future int p'a' with monthlv rests rrom the 0"," "r;;,;..-":st -@13% date or realization alons with costs and in default r:':: : :* or sale of OA schedule properties.

¶8

Summons served on D1 paper publication. Thev

¶9

were set ex-parre on ,1"^l :lro'nn 3'09'2024 as called absent and no

¶10

representation,

¶11

The Applicant Bank examined Motte Sanjay Kumar, Senior

¶12

Manager, as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through him as

¶13

Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06.

¶14

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be

¶15

passed through merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶16

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶17

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶18

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to 4.06 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 wlth future interest and costs.

¶19

In the result, the^present Original Applicqti-on^{No.875/2023is} arrowed as under: - //M:o't" (v

¶20

oA.NO.A7sl2o23

¶21

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.53,15,206/-^{with future interest @11olo} p.a. simple from the date^{of application till} the date of^realization;

¶22

ii) the OA claim^{is securedby way of mortgage} of properties described^{inthe schedule} annexed to the^{OA and the appllcant bankis} entitled to^{proceedagainstthe same to} realise its debt;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly'

¶27

Communicate a^{copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 22"d Day ofJuly,2025).

¶28

.r\tvt<.rsP -+.,

¶29

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. S Jagannath Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. S Jagannath Reddy

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v. Lokesh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gore Amarnath Reddy

Ms Tudor Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Kamal Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Teja Sri Enterprises

M.Raghupathi versus Indian Bank