Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Vattikuti Sridevi

DRT16 Apr 2026OA/141/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an origin application filed by a bank for recovery of a term loan. The court confirmed the defendants' liability, acknowledged partial payment through property sale, and directed joint and several liability for the balance with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay remaining sum of Rs.21,42,004 with interest, less Rs.13.80 realized from auction; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Vattikuti Sridevi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE t6rH DAy OF APRIL 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.141 ol2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Bodhan branch, Nizamabad - 503 1B0.TS Represented by its Senior Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mrs. Vattikuti Sridevi, w/o V, Rambabu, aged 51 years, male, R/o H.No.B-g1, SN puram,

¶10

Varnimandal, Nizamabad - 503 201.

¶11

Sri V. Rambabu, s/o V. Venkat rao, aged 54 years, male, R/o H.No.8-91, SN puram, Varnimandal, Nizamabad - 503 201.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

For the Applicant
Sri V. Raghu
Defendants
Sri T, Vijay Kumar
Orders reserved on t5.04.2026
Pronounced on t6.04.2026
Uploaded in webs .04.2026
W****#

¶15

(OA. No.141/2023)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.21,42rOO4l- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and four only) with subsequent interest @ 9.70olo p.a and penal interest @ 2o/o p.a with monthly rests from 19.11.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 & 2 are wife and husband who availed term loan of Rs.15 lakhs on 30.03.2017. Defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned property in favour of applicant bank and deposited the title deeds bearing no.2092/2017 dated 12.04.2017. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 01.03.2019. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued recall notice dated t4.L0.2019, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of of Rs.2l,42,OO4l- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Forty Two

¶19

Thousand and only) with subsequent interest @ 9.70o/o p.a and pena monthly rests from L9.71.2022 till the e OA. iir ii* l6APBzua * ti .rl . li *noQamP

¶20

(oA.No.14U2023)

¶21

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is admitted by the defendants that they availed term loan from the Applicant bank. It is contended that the Applicant bank initiated SARFAESI measures and proceeded with sale of schedule property. The defendants paid a sum of Rs.17.SO lakhs complying the orders in sA.Lt7/2023 wherein the auction price was Rs.13.g0 lakhs. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶22

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶23

Heard the arguments.

¶24

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶25

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶26

ii) To what relief ?

¶27

Point No.i):

¶28

Mr. P. Manoj Kumar, Senior Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on
behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the
defendants. Exhibits A.1 to 4.6 are marked through AW.1, The
Applicant bank filed a part satisfaction memo stating that a sum of
Rs.13.80 t [hrough sale of schedule property,
rk w&)
*
16 npn tW *
?,6
?
$,r-s#

¶29

(OA.No.14ll2023)

¶30

7' As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have avaired roan from the Appricant Bank, but faired to repay the amount. Ail the amounts paid by the defendants are crearry mentioned in the statement of account fired by Appricant Bank. The defendants have not praced any materiar documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the Applicant bank faired to follow the RBI guidelines as per the norms.

¶31

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their riabirity is ress than the amount mentioned in the oA under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupred with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.6 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank crearry estabrished that the defendants are riabre to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶32

Point No.ii)

¶33

In the result, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶34

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.21,42,O04l- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs

¶35

Forty Two )^{with subsequent} interest @ 9.70o/o p.a from of realization LESS a sum of Rs.13.8O reatlz&ffis{gof ule property;

¶36

(oA.No.141/2023)

¶37

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is entiHed to the costs of the OA.

¶39

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 166 day of Aprll, 2026)

¶43

sdl-

¶44

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

ffi.U
<br>u lEAPn.fitfr
rtl
Pa -e.
^. .'i,
frr.'H,'#

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Vattikuti Sridevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Vattikuti Sridevi

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. Karnem Upender

Smt Koheer Vanitha versus Punjab National Bank

Mrs Aisha Tabassum versus Indostar Capital Finance Limited

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Veeramaneni Someshwar Rao

Intelligentia Mansions Private Limited versus Asset Reconstructions Co. India Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hotcrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.