Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Standard Mobiles

DRT10 Sept 2025OA/977/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal adjudicated an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 61,76,965.75 against borrowers and guarantors. The court dismissed defenses regarding blank documents and signatures were not challenged, upholding the bank's claim for principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 ordered to pay Rs. 61,76,965.75 with interest at 8% p.a. and costs; OA schedule assets are secured for realization.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Standard Mobiles — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE TENTHDAYOF SEPTEMBER, 2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B'COM,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.}

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO. 977 OF 2023}

¶5

Between: Union Bank^{of India} Begumpet^Branch Hyderabad Rep by its Chief^Manager'

¶6

.......Applica^nt.

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. Sri Standard^Mobiles Rep bY its Proprietor Sri Medthani^{VenkateshwarRao} S/o Late M.^{Rama Rao} Age: 43 Years,^{Occ: Business} Shop No.^{1, McHComPlex}

¶9

Also at: 12- 10-s86/B/3 Plot No.82lC,^RoadNo.1 Indira Nagar Colony Medi Bavi, Seethafalmndi Secunderabad.

¶10

Smt. M. SwaPna Wo^{Sri MedthanVenkateswar Rao} Age: Major, Occ:^Housewife 12- 70-586 /^Bl 3,^PlotNo.82/C, Road No.1, Indira^{Nagar Colony} Medi Bavi, Seethafalmndi Secunderabad.

¶11

Smt. Medishetti^{Uma Maheswari @ Pavani} Wo^{LateM. Venkataswamy} Age: 54^{years, Occ: EmPloyee} 3-112/ Al20l^{L, Bimreddy Nagar Colony} chatkesar^Mandal ..... Defendants. Ghatkesar K.V.^Reddy - s00 N"*092.

¶12

oa.977 /2023

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Defenda nts

¶14

Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal. Ivlr. Abhay Singh.

¶15

:: ORDER::

¶16

The Applicant Bank fited the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.61,76,965.75ps (Rs.50,22,537.41ps towards toan account No.043513100000353 along with future interest @13.25olo ptus 2o/o pendl interest, Rs.g,79,353.34ps towards loan account No.043530100132120 along with future interest @7.50/o plus 2o/o penal interest and Rs.2,7S,O7S/_ towards loan account No. 043530100131820 along with future interest @80/o plus 2% penal interest) from the defendants from 16.11.2023 till the date of realisation and sale of OA schedule assets.

¶17

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are _ defendant No.1 engaged in sales and services of mobiles, availed cash credit facility of Rs.47,00,000/_ under sanction letter dated 72.02.2oL8 (wrongly typed in oA as 05.02.2019) to be repayable with 11.95olo interest. The loan is secured by way of hypothecation of stocks and book debts and collateralty secured by equitable mortgage of OA schedule properties. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors to the loan availed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed D.p. Note dated 72.O2.2OtA, Composite Agreement dated 12.02.2018 (wrongly typed in OA as 72.t2.2079) and Guarantee dated tZ.O2.2Ofe (wrongly typed in OA as 72.12.20tg) agreeing to the terms and conditions of the loan. The cash credit facility was renewed on 22.03.2079 and again on 28.05.2020. The hypothecation and mortgages were duly extended for -the renewed limits. lS.otr-!'

¶18

oA-977120?3

¶19

Defendant availed^{term loans of Rs 4 70 lakhs and Rs 9 40} lakhs under Guarantee^{EmergencyCredit Line Schemeon} 22.06.2020 and^{04.07.2020 respectively'However'defendants} did not^{maintainthe loan account as per the agreed terms' The} loan accounts^{were classifiedas NPASon 30 '04 '2022'The} defendant^{was not running the business at the premises} available on^{bank'srecords.Applicant bank issued legalnotice} dated 17.11.2023^{calling for liquidatingthe outstandingdues'}

¶20

Defendants l^{and 2 filed written statement and defendant No'3} filed memo^{adopting the same' The defendantstotally denied} each and^{every avermentof the OA specificallywhile pointing} out undervaluation of^{properties and denylng closure of} business operations.^{Defendantsfurther contend that the OA is} based on^{inadmissible and unenforceabledocuments as the said} documents^{were got executedon blank' unfilled'printed} formats and^{subsequentlyfilledup by the bank for the purpose} of the^{presentOA. Therefore,the OA is liable to be dismissed} with exemPlary^costs.

¶21

In order to Prove its case, the^{Applicant Bank examinedM'} AW-1 and marked^{39 documentsthrough}

¶22

Venu, Manager^as him as Exs. A.1^to Ex. A.39.

¶23

In order to substantiate^{their defence,} Defendants^examined M. no

¶24

as DW.1 but^marked

¶25

Venkateshwar^{Rao, Defendant No'2} documents.

¶26

Heard learned^{counsel for applicant bank and learned counsel} for the defendants.^{Perused the material placed on record'}

¶27

Ow"*

¶28

oA..97712023

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank would submit that the contention of def ro rm ats is ba se ess a s,r "Ti,:::'j'.tJ[1 J ll"ji,o",:J'fl ::; specific term or conditionl th e post docu me",",,"". ;::;:r-:;:fitfi ffiT""J,, # that the averments in the written statement are contradicting each other for the reason of execution of loan documents, deposit of tiue deeds of properties being denied on one hand, defendants on the other hand took a plea that they were made to sign blank documents. It was further submitted that Exhibits A.1 to A.39 do relate to th€ by th e res pecti ve o *" o " "^{;."r0;;u;1]1'r::::: :'l;::::} disputed these documents. refore' appricant is abre to prove its craim and the defendanl co u n se r p ra yed ro,. *, ",, " "^n','i "^XI: "tTil::::;",.1il:1'^- 8, Learned counser appearing for the defendants, whire reiterating the pleadings in the written statement, prayed for dismissat of OA on the ground of the d( bank beins ri,red up by,r" #ff::1j1;:,:J##""."""-"

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the OA ctaim against the Defendants 1 to 3 and the OA schedule assets?

¶32

Defendants filed the written statement totally denying each and every averment of the OA including execution of toan documents, deposit of ti e deeds of mortgaged property and execution of Memorandum of Deposit of Tifle Deeds. Whereas applicant bank marked Exl'.''b$lrand A 3s to A 37 in

¶33

oa.97712023

¶34

support of^{its claim against the defendants' The documents} placed on record as^{Ex.A.1to A'20 containthe signatureof the} concerned defendant.^{Neither the authenticityof documents} marked through^{AW.1 nor the signatures'thereon are disputed} by the defendants^{either in the pleadingsor by way of cross} examination of^{AW.1 with specialreferenceto the alleged} alterations^{if any,made in the said documents'Under such} facts and^{circumstances, the EvidenceAffidavit of Aw' 1 coupled} with the recitals^{in Exs. A'1 to A'39 marked on behalf of the} Applicant^{Bank, remain unchallengedand unrebutted' Hence' I} hold that Defendants^{1 to 3 are jointlyand severally liable to} pay the OA claim to^{the Applicant Bank withfuture interest and} costs.

¶35

In the result,^{the present OriginalApplicationNo'97712o23is} allowed as under:^-

¶36

the defendants 1 to^{3 are liable to pay to the}

¶37

i) applicant bank a^{total sum ofRs'} Rs.61,76,965.7sPs^{(Rs.50,22,537.41Ps,} Rs.8,79,353.34Ps^{and Rs.2,75,075.00) along} with interest @80/o P.a.^{simple from the date} of application till^{the date of realization;}

¶38

ii) the OA claim is^{secured bY way of} hypothecation/mortgage^{of assets descrlbed} in the schedules^{annexedto the OA and the} applicant^{bank is entitled to proceed against} the same for^{realisation of its dues;}

¶39

iir) applicant bank^{ls also entitledto proceed} against the^{person and propertiesof} defendants for reallziltion N^"^{of ig; dues; and}

¶40

oA.977 /2023

¶41

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶42

L2. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web Site.

¶45

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10" day of September, 2025.)

¶46

H(o'"oe SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Standard Mobiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Standard Mobiles

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Laxmi Durga Wines

Canara Bank versus Ganapathiraju Praneel Varma

Canara Bank versus Boya Moolinti Parvathamma

Bank of India versus M/S. Power Line Systems

Kiran Kumar Kondaru versus Hdfc Bank

Chand Pasha versus M/s.Cholamandal Investments and Finance Co.Ltd