Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

DRT29 Jun 2026OA/105/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues Rs. 23.62 lakhs from proprietorial firm proprietor and guarantor. Court proceeded ex parte and ordered issuance of recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed. Defendants liable to pay Rs. 23.62 lakhs with interest. Recovery Certificate issued. Proceeds from hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMAD| cOptCHAND, pREStDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 105 OF 2026

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Garepalli Branch, 9-1/7,Main Road, Garepally, Kataram Mandal, Jayashankar, Bhupalapally District, Telangana

¶6

Represented by its Authorized Person

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant, Represented by its Proprietor,

¶10

Sri, Nomula Janardhan, S/o. Sri Govardhan,

¶11

Age about 32 years, Occ Business, H.No. 2-68, Budidepalle Vittage, Reg ulagundem Grampanchayath, Kataram District, Jayashamkhar, Bhupalapalli District - 505 503.

Also at -

Sy.No, 179/1 ,

Roads,

nchayath, mkhar, D 503

¶16

6,,,*""'ii"']i

¶17

(oA. No. 10s/2025)

¶18

Mrs. Yaramada^padma, Wo, Sri. Lenkala^yadagiri, Age Major, Occ: Service, H.No.6-3-51/6, Power House Colony, Godavari Khani Pedda Pally District, Telangana - 50S 209 Defendants

¶19

Counsel forthe parties:
For TheApplicant	Sangeeta Jaiswal
FortheDefendant	Exparte
Reservedon	29.06.2026
Pronouncedon	29.06.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	30.06.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,62,229.10 ps. (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred Nine and Paise Ten Only) i.e a sum of -

¶22

JUll 2026 .j: #)-$r

¶23

,"*fltlrti/ ?ER'{.'..r/''

¶24

(OA. No. 10s/2026)

¶25

(i) Rs.9,47,433.16 Ps. with future rate of interest @14o/o p.a with monthly rests (inclusive of 2o/o penal interest) from 17.12.2025ti|| the date of realization;

¶26

(ii) Rs.14,14,795.94 Ps. with future rate of interest @12.g1o/o p.a with monthly rests (inclusive of Zo/o penal interest) from 17.12.2025ti|t the date of reatization;

¶27

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property A and B to OA.

¶28

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor availed Term Loan facility of Rs.10,00,000/_ repayable in 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.11,904.96/- p.m with interest @ 11.55% p.a and Cash credit

¶29

loan facility of Rs.13,00,000/- with interest @ 11.55% p.a and executed necessary documents such as General Term Loan agreement dated 04.10.2023, Term loan Agreement dated 26.12.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor and executed Guarantee for line of credit Loan dated 04.10.2023 and 26.12.2023 in favor Bank. The Defendants created equitable lly mentioned in Schedule of property B to Memorandum of Deposit of Tiile Deeds

¶30

(OA. No. 10s/2026)

¶31

dated 04.10.2023 in favor of the Appricant bank. After avairing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 04.04.2025 and issued Demand Notice dated 21.06.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFEAST Act, 2OOZ to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶32

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 29.06.2026.

¶33

Sri. Selon Sikander, Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.2g.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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?

¶36

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, otficial of the Appticant Bank was and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has claim made in the OA against the Defendants J^2ttiunry6 I 4 $** .-.,.,i?j

¶37

(oA. No. 10s/2026)

¶38

and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶39

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶40

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,62,229.10 ps. (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine and paise Ten Only) i.e a sum of -

¶41

(i) Rs.9,47,433.16 Ps. with future rate of interest @14o/o p.a from 17.12.2025ti|| the dateof realization;

¶42

(ii) Rs.14,14,795.94 Ps. with future rate of interest @12.g1o/o p.a from 17.12.2025ti[ the dateof realization.

¶43

o The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties AS mentioned in the Schedule of the Property A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

nt Bank is also entiiled to proceed against the properties of Defendant No. 2 and properties of 1 Firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

(oA. No. 10s/2026)

¶46

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶47

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

¶48

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated-to -the^{P A., transcribed by her,co*ected,signed and pronounced by me in} the open court on this the 29rh day ot Jun,2026)

¶51

sd/_
(c. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

,, * 2 I ,.luH 2925
rd?
. t7. ^.r q
Q'h'"*g.'-B-.-$
.ii..:JtrEpJ i-r:J

¶53

([vw
,-1.rlm:'

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

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

Laxmi Venkataramana Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mrs Gada Uma Lavanya versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Dsr Electricals

Rohit Enterprises and Others versus Icici Bank Limited

V Raghavendra versus Union Bank of India

Mr Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy versus State Bank of India