Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

DRT25 Aug 2025OA/95/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.95 of 2024, the Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudicated a recovery plea by Union Bank of India against M/s. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers for a defaulted loan. Finding the bank's documentation conclusive and the defendant's defense untenable, the Tribunal allowed the claim and directed realization from movables. Costs and a Recovery Certificate were issued.

What did the court decide?

The OA allowed; defendant liable to pay Rs.25,02,413/- with interest; bank entitled to proceed against movables and properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.95 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Khammam - 507 001. Telangana State. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers, Prop: Mrs Sesham Kavya, w/o Sesham Venkataramana, aged 33 years, #9-11-29/2, SVS temple, Khammam - 507 001.

¶10

Factory at:

¶11

M/s. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers, Prop: Mrs. Sesham Kavya, W/o Sesham Venkataramana, Aged 33 years, #6-22, pallegudem, Khammam Rural, Khammam- 507 001. Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrala Defendant 2 5 AUC 20S Si G. Kishor

Defendant

(OA.No.95/2024)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,02,4 13/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Two thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen only) with subsequent interest @ 12.459% + 3.20% p.a from 01.03.2023 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary Concern represented by its proprietor Mrs. Sesham Kavya, dealing with manufacturing of slippers availed MSME loan of Rs.22.00 lakhs. The defendant executed term loan agreement, letter of continuity AD-09, undertaking Annexure-II, interest agreement, demand promissory note etc and hypothecated all the machinery and movables in favour of applicant bank. The defendant agreed to repay the loan amount in 72 EMI's with interest of EBR + 3.20% p.a.

¶19

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendant has availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and thé Applicant bank issued demand notice dated 26.07.2021, but the defendants didihot come forward to repay the same. ThÇ total 2 cfaiñn of. Applicant against defendants is of

¶20

(OA.No.95/2024)

¶21

Rs.25,02,413/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Two thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen only) with subsequent interest @ 12.45% + 3.20% p.a from 01.03.2023 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶22

The Defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that no documents were filed by defendant and that the defendant did not create hypothecation of machinery and movables in favour of Applicant bank. It is submitted that the defendant deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for granting the business loan and made an FD for Rs.3.00 lakhs with the Applicant bank. It is further contended^{that the defendants signedonblank documents and} stated that the^{Applicantbank chargedhighrateofinterestwhichis} Hence prayed^{fordismissalof OA.} against to the^{guidelinesofRBI.} Defendant examined herself as DW.1 but not filed any documents.

¶23

3 I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶24

Heard the arguments.

¶25

5 Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ?

¶27

ii) To what relief2 3

¶28

(OA.No.95/2024)

¶29

Point No.i):

¶30

Cri R. Veera Vasantha Rao, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on hehalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendant. Exhibits A. 1 to A.18 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendant.

¶31

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant examined herself as DW.1 and not filed any documents, her evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendant having taken the plea they made some payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendant very vaguely contended^{thatparticularsmadeintheOAarenotcorrect.} But as per the^{statenmentofaccounts,thedefendantis liabletopay} the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken^{bythedefendant} is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amnount from defendant. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendant.

¶32

Point No.ii)

¶33

In the the present Orlginal application is allowed with costs as resyy 025 undes:

¶34

(OA.No.95/2024)

¶35

The^{Defendantisliableto paytoApplicantBankatotalsumof} Rs.25,02,413/-^{(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Two thousand Four} Hundred and^{Thirteenonly) withsubsequentinterest@ 12.45%} p.a from^{01.03.2023till the date ofrealization.}

¶36

The^{Applicantbankis entitledtoproceedagainstthehypothecated} movables as^{describedinthe schedule toOA towards therealization} of the^{debt due.}

¶37

The^{Applicant bankis also entitled toproceed against theperson and} properties of^{defendanttowards realization of the debt due.}

¶38

The^{Applicant Bank isentitled tothe costs of the OA.}

¶39

The^{Applicant shallfileacost memowithintwoweeks fromthe date}

¶40

of^{receipt of order.}

¶41

13.^{IssueRecoverycertificate accordingly.}

¶42

Communicate a^{copy of the order tothepartiesconcerned.}

¶43

(Dictated to the^{P.A.,transcribedbyher,corrected, signedandpronouncedbymeinthe opencourt on} this the^{25th day of Aug'2025)}

¶44

Sd/

¶45

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

2 5 AUG 02ä
CRABAD
VNN

¶47

TRUE

¶48

Asst. Ragisirar

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

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

M S P v Amarnadha Prasad and Co. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Suryanarayana J

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sree Vaishnavi Stone Crusher

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

Canara Bank versus Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepelli Mahesh