Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Namita Kaur

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/1078/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application by Union Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of Rs. 69,50,827.45 plus interest and costs. The defendants were heard ex-parte. The claim was held valid based on submitted documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.69,50,827.45 plus future interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants' assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Namita Kaur — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1gTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1078 OF 2025

¶5

Un ion Bank of India., MG Road Secunderabad Branch. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Appticant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Namita Kaur, W/o. Sri curjeet Kaur, Aged about 35 Years Occ: Housewife, H.No.13-53, Plot No.60 Gautha Nagar, TRR Township lYeerpet Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District Telangana - 500097.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Plot No.191, Municipal Colony, Besides Balaji Homes Colony, Badanpet Hyderabad, Telanga na - 500058.

¶11

Sri. Rishpal Singh, S/o. Sri. Santh Singh, Age 41 Years, Occ: Service H.No.13-53, Plot No.60, Gautha Nagar TRR Township Meerpet, Hyderabad Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500097.

¶12

Also at:-

¶13

Plot No.191, lvlunicipal Colony, Besides Balaji Homes Colony, Badanper Hydera bad, Telangana - 500058.

¶14

... Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant : lYr. Sangeeta Jaiswal Defendants : Ex- parte

fiy'or*

oA.NO.1078/202s

::^qLLq& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.69,50 ,827 .45ps towards A/c. No.004426650000016 from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @9.85o/o^p.a. with^{monthly restsfrom 08.10.2025 till the date} of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule^property.

¶21

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on LA.02.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined Neeraj Tiwari, Asst. Manager, as AW-1 and marked 15 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.15.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property ?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.15 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 9glk with future interest and costs. /ktxfo

¶27

oA.NO.1078/202s

¶28

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.107Bl2025 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.69,50,827.45ps towards A/c. No. 004426650000016; with future interest @8.8olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

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;

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accord ing ly.

¶36

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 19th Day of December, 2025).

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Namita Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Namita Kaur

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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Veldi Ramesh Fruits Merchants.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Vijaya Surya Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajmeera Suguna

Sree Parmeswara Co. and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Bharat Iti Mr S Rajashekar Reddy versus Wardhaman Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Vedighar Nagaraju