Allowed

M/s Union Bank of India v. M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/125/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the court examined the bank's evidence despite the respondents appearing ex-parte. The court held that the claim was legally established. The application was allowed, directing the defendants to pay the principal amount along with reduced future interest and authorizing the bank to proceed against assets and properties for realizatio

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 21,49,085.13 with 9.25% p.a. interest; bank entitled to sell hypothecated assets and proceed against defendants' properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 125 OF 2026

¶6

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA Having its Registered Omce at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai and branches all over India Including its branch at Boduppal Medchal-Malkajgiri Rep by its Sr. Manager and Principal Officer

¶7

......Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall Rep by its proprietor P. Lingaswamy

¶10

Unit at: Plot No.281, Veerereddy Nagar, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District TS-s00092

¶11

1. Pedagani Lingaswamy S/o Chandaiah, Aged: Major, Occ: Business,

¶12

H.NO.5-3/2/7 /3, Plot No.69, Annapurna Colony, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District T5-500092

¶13

.... Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shravan Kumar Ragi

¶15

Defendants

¶16

: Party in Person/ Ex-parte

¶17

:: qLLqL ::

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 21,49,085.13^ps from defendants 1 & 2^jointly and severally with future interest @ 18o/o p.a,with monthly rests 0Y*"

¶19

oA.NO.12S12026

¶20

from the date oF appllcation till the date of realization along with costs, and in default, sale of OA hypothecated assets.

¶21

Though the 2'd Defendant representation 1st defendant as a proprietor entered appearance as party in person and availed the material documents, but did not choose to flle written statement. Accordingly, defendants' right of filing written statement was forfeited on 19.06.2026 and was set ex-parte on the same date.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Y. Sudha Kishore, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through them as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10.

¶23

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. 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 hypothecated assets?

¶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.10 marked on behalf of the Appllcant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Appticant Bank with future interest and cosE/AW\b$

¶27

oA.NO.L25/2026

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.12512026 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 21,49,085.13 ps with future interest @ 9.25olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

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 23'd Day of June, 2026).

¶36

PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s Union Bank of India v. M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Union Bank of India v. M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

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

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Pithani Veera Raju

Hdfc Bank versus Yateesree Marketing

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna

Bank of Baroda versus Panuganti Balaraj