Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies.

DRT18 Feb 2026OA/1077/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs.39,99,207 with future interest and costs, holding the Defendants jointly and severally liable based on ex-parte proceedings and evidence filed by the Applicant.

What did the court decide?

Declarations of joint and several liability to pay Rs.39,99,207 with 12.50% simple interest; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants' assets; grant of costs and Recovery Certi

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Venkateswara… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1BTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1077 OF ZO2S

¶4

Union Bank of India., Raghavarajapuram Branch, Railway Kodur Mandal, Annamayya District, Ap - 516105. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies., A Proprietary Concern

¶8

Rep by its Propretrix Mrs.Valluru C. Sasikala, Redg Office at D.No.3/304 3/304-A, Raghavaraja^puram, Railway Kodur, Annamaya District - 516101.

¶9

Mrs. Valluru Chinnamagari Sasikala W/o. Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy Aged Major, Occ: Business, H.No.3/304 3/304-A, Raghavaraja puram, Railway Kodur, Annamaya District - 516101.

¶10

. . . Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. V. Raghu

Defendants

: Ex_parte

:: ORDER ::

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA for the recovery a totar sum of Rs.39,99,207l- towards CC A/c.No.23041SO10OO0OO1 from the defendants joinfly and severaily with future interest @L2o/o p'a. from o2.ro.2o2s tiil the date of rearization arong

¶16

with costs and in default for sale of OA sc{edule property. y,,r:)fr,.-,:

¶17

oA.No.Lo77l2O2S

¶18

Summons served^{on D1 and 2 and was set ex-parteon} 17.02.2026^{as called absentand no representation'}

¶19

The Applicant^{Bank examined C R Reddy,Legal Manager' as} AW-1 and^{marked 16 documents through him as Ex' A'1 to Ex'} A.16.

¶20

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the Applicant Bank'Perused the} material^{placed on record} '

¶21

The point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶22

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendants^{and OA schedule} ProPertY?

¶23

As stated supra, the^{Defendants remained ex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupled with the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to^{A.16 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the^{claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I^{hold that the Defendantsare jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the^{OA claim to the Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶24

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo'1077/2025is} allowed as^{under: -}

¶25

i) The Defendants^{are jointly and severally} liable to^pay to^{the Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.39,99,207/-^{towards CC Alc'No'} 23O41501OOOOOO1^{with future interest} ffist

¶26

oA.NO.1077/2025

¶27

¶28

@12.05o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th Day of February, 2026).

¶35

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies.

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

Ganesh Rajesh versus Yms Finance Private Limited

Gummadavelli Ganesh versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Turpu Ramesh versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Pulluri Sairam

Canara Bank versus M/s. Chandana Apparels

Union Bank of India versus M/s. R S Engineers & Consultants.