Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Manvi Earth Works.

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/1081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex-parte debt recovery proceeding, the Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application. The defendants were held jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed sum with future interest and costs, secured by hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 33,90,571.82 with future interest and costs; debt secured by hypothecated vehicle; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Manvi Earth Works. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS lHE 24TH DAY OF JUNE,²⁰²⁶

¶3

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

¶4

PRESlDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1081^{OF 2025}

¶6

Union Bank of India., Kompally Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by lts Branch N4anager.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Manvi Earth Works., Rep by its Prop. Smt.^{Mergu Sravanthi} Off. At H.No.5-41 /127,^{Raia Rajeshwara} Colony, Road.No.8,^{Old Bowenpally} Hyderabad, Telangana -^500011.

¶10

Smt. Mergu Sravanthi

¶11

D/o. M. Satyanarayana,^{Aqed About} 36 Years, FVo.^{Flat No.513,L Tower} Railway Colony, Macha^Bollaram Telangana - 500014'

¶12

... Defendants

¶13

: Mr. P. Naga Durga^Prasad Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-Parte

::^qLLEL::

The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.33,90,571.82ps^{from the defendantsjointly and} severally with future interest @18o/o^{p.a. with monthlyrests} from the date of^{aPplicationtill the date of realizatlonalong} with costs and in default^{for sate of hypotheqatedvehicle'}

¶18

oA.NO.1081/2025

¶19

¶20

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 16.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Naveen Kolipaka, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.09 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Apptication No.1081/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.33,90,571.82ps with future interest @10.30% p.a. simple from the date of application ti the date or reatizationlfuz,O5l\

¶28

oA.NO.1081/2025

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle 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^propefties 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 24th Day of June, 2025).

¶35

fi:';-*^vtt (RAMfSHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Manvi Earth Works.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Manvi Earth Works.

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna

Canara Bank versus M/s. MD Rafi Boiler Poultry Farm

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nehemiah

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.