Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sundarapalli Venkataiah

DRT11 Mar 2026OA/111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RDT allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a housing loan default. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable due to failure to adduce evidence, confirming liability for principal, interest, and secured mortgage rights.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.76,26,542.89 plus future interest at 8.75% p.a. and costs; Bank entitled to proceed against property and persons.

Union Bank of India versus Sundarapalli Venkataiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2024.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile And h ra Bank) Ramantha pur Branch Hyderabad Public School Campus Ha namkonda^- Hyderabad Road Rep by its Authorised Officer. .......Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

Su ndarapa lli Venkataiah S/o S. Su bbaiah Aged about 60 years Occ: Business, H. No.7-51lE J.S.N. Colony, Street No.8 Habsiguda, Hydera bad Telangana State. 2. Mr. Sandrapalli Venkata Bipin Kumar S/o S. Venkataiah, l,lajor Occ: Business, H. No. 7-51lE LS.N. Colony, Street No.8 Habsiguda, Hyderabad ..... Defendants. Telangana State.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. V. Sethu 14adhava Rao. Counsel for Defendant No.1 : Mr. D. Raghavulu. Defendant No.2 : Exparte

¶11

:: ORDER::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.76,26,542.89Ps^jointly and severally from the defendants )\t A ,, .\.,,- ).Ir

¶13

oa.L17/2024

¶14

together with future interest @10.75olo (8.75o/o + 2.00o/o penal) per annum from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule property.

¶15

The averments of applicant bank, as per the OA, briefly, are;

¶16

Defendant No.1 availed a housing loan of Rs.70 lakhs for purchase of OA schedule property vide sanction tetter dated 70.03.2077 to be repayable in 240 monthly instalments. Defendant No.1 deposited the original registered sale deed of the OA schedule property vide MOD No.16891/2018 dated 05.05.2018. Defendant No.2, son of defendant No.1, is the coobligant to the housing loan availed by defendant No.1. Defendants committed default in repayment and the account became NPA, followed by SARFAESI proceedings. In spite of personal contacts, demands, registered letters and demand notices, defendants failed to liquidate the amount due to the applicant bank. Hence, the present OA.

¶17

Defendant No.1 filed written statement. The averments in the written statement, in brief, are:

¶18

Defendant No.1 admit of being borrower and defendant No.2 being the co-obligant for the purpose of availment of Rs.70 lakhs housing loan from the applicant bank. However, defendant No.1 denies of all other averments of OA in general and execution of composite agreement promising to repay the loan of Rs.70 lakhs with interest @8.75yo per annum with monthly rests and deposit of original registered sale deed vide MOD No.16891/2018 dated 05.05.2018 in specific. The amount claimed in the OA is without proper calculations and contrary to the contract between the parties. The defend?qts are ready to //Iuata ^\ ^ l-./'///^<-s\9*

¶19

oA.17t/2024

¶20

close the account subject to^proper accounts. Appllcant bank would have issued notice to the defendants had there been a default in repayment of loan amount. The^present OA is^filed hurriedly to harass the defendants and therefore the applicant is not entitled to any costs. The OA is neither maintainable^nor tenable. Accordingly, defendant^prays for dismissal of the^OA with exemplary costs in the interest of^justice.

¶21

Defendant No.2 was set exparte vide docket order dated 28.06.2024 as called, absent and no representation.

¶22

In order to^prove its claim, the applicant^{bankexamined K.} 7

¶23

Shiv Kumar, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and^marked documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.7.

¶24

Despite conditional order, defendants failed to adduce^evidence. Accordingly, defendants right to adduce evidence^{was forfeited} vide docket order dated 20.11.2025.

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the^{applicant. Defendant's} right of arguments forfeited vide docket order^dated 02.02.2026. Perused the material^{placed on record.}

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant bank^{would submitthat as the} defendants failed to clear the dues, the^{present OA is filed.} Except filing written making bald^{statements, defendantsdid} not choose to file evidence or cross examine^{the AW 1 to} disprove the Exs.A.1 to A.7 relied on by^{the applicantbank,} leading to defendants right of filing evidence^{beingforfeited.} Further, defendants allowed their right of^{arguments also} forfeited. Therefore, applicant bank^{has proved its claim vide} evidence affidavit of AW.1 and the^{exhibits A.1 to A.7}

¶27

Ov*

¶28

oA.Llu2024

¶29

documents, which were not confronted by the defendants either by filing contrary evidence or cross examining AW.1. Hence, applicant bank is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the OA. With these submissions, learned counsel for the applicant bank prayed for allowing the OA claim in the interest of justice.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

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

¶32

The defendants denied of execution of documents relied on by the applicant bank. However, the defendants neither chose to produce any contradictory evidence in support of their contentlons nor did they cross examine AW.1 to disprove the authenticity of the exhibits A.1 to A.18 relied on by the applicant bank. It is settled law that any amount of pleadings without supporting evidentlary material is of no use and needs no consideration. Under these facts and circumstances, the evidence affidavit of AW.1 and the recitals in exhibits A.1 to A.7 remain unrebutted and unchallenged. Accordingly, I hold that defendants 1 and 2 are jolntly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Application No.111/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) the defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.76,26,542.89Ps qlong with interest ffiru

¶35

oA.LLLI2024

¶36

@8.75olo^{per annum simplefrom the date of} application till the date^{of realization;}

¶37

ii) the OA claim is secured by^{way of mortgage} of OA schedule^property and^{the applicant} bank is entitled to^{proceed againstthe same} for recoverY of its debt;

¶38

iii) the applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceed} against the^person and^propertiesof defendants I and² for^{realisation of its dues;} and

¶39

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶40

The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of^{receipt of this Order'}

¶41

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶42

14.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in official^{Web Portal.}

¶43

(Dictated to the steno,^{signed andpronouncedby me in the open court on this the 11th} day of March,^2026).

¶44

fift6**

¶45

(RAFTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Sundarapalli Venkataiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sundarapalli Venkataiah

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Teknik Enterprises.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Sai Silk Sarees.

Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Satya Sai Transport

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. versus Ms. Padal Bhavya

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. versus Ms. Tm Monica

M/S Abrars Today Fashion Mall versus City Union Bank Limited