Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vignatha Granites

DRT8 May 2026OA/200/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an order for adjustment filed by Union Bank of India against Vignnatha Granites and the proprietor Puchakayala Sridevi. The Bank recovered Rs. 23,63,680 with future interest based on a term loan secured by hypothecation of movables where the account was classified as NPA.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 23,63,680 plus future interest @ 14% p.a.; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vignatha Granites — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OSth DAY OF MAY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI cOPIcHAND, PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶4

OA. No. 200 OF 2026

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of lndia, Gandhi Chowk Branch, Khammam Branch - 2 Khammam - 507 002.,

¶7

Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Vignnatha Granites,

¶11

Rep. by its Proprietor,

¶12

Mr. Puchakayala Sridevi,

¶13

Add : Sy. No. 164/E, Pallegudem Village,

¶14

Venkatayapalem Gram Panchayath i,

¶15

Khammam Rural,

¶16

Telangana - 507 003,

¶17

PuchakayalaSridevi,

¶18

Wo. Puchakayala Kamalakar,

¶19

Aged about 54 years,

¶20

Occ. Female, 1 2t1, 1't Lane, 507 00'1 j ^'lY'tTr lFif" I .,,'"sg

¶21

Defendants

¶22

(OA. No. 200/2026)

¶23

Counsel for the parties :

¶24

For The Applicant Tarangini Pisipati For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 06.05.2026 Pronounced on 08.5.2026 Upload in website on 12.05.2026

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,63,680 ps. (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Only) with future interest @i4.Ooo/o p.a with monthly rests from 30.12.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶27

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship Firm represented by its Defendant No. 2 availed term loan facility of hs repayable in 74 monthly installments of interest @10.80% p.a with monthly rests and Loan Agreement dated 11.11.2020 in favor of nk. The Defendants secured the term loan facility

¶28

(oA. No. 200/2026)

¶29

by hypothecation of movables morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property and executed Hypothecation of Vehicle Agreement dated 1i.1i.2020 and in favor of the Applicant bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 11.10.2025 and issued Demand Notice dated 04.01.2026 under section l3(2) of SARFESI Acl,2002 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 06.05.2026.

¶31

Sri. K. Goutham Alexander, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.'l and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A 13.

¶32

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶34

and remained exparte. To substantiate the case of fy * "'"TF"t Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was er^{1 2 ilA6xuffiineo*} he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A 1 to

¶35

¶36

(oA. No. 200/2026)

¶37

A.13. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶38

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs. as under :

¶39

The Defendants No. i and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,63,6g0 ps. (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Only) with future interest @14.OOo/o p.a from 30.12.2025 till the date of realization.

¶40

¶41

The Appllcant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables mentioned in the Schedule of property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendant No. 2 and properties of Defendant No. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

nt Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶44

E 12 ,ltA'.l 7n26 :
4
S,mqW

¶45

(oA. No. 200/2025)

¶46

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

¶47

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P A.. transcribed by her corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08'h day of May 2026)

¶50

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶51

PRESIDING OFF!CER

¶52

TRUE^co\PY .<1'F-o -o#,l,'nwineaeo'

¶53

Z6 (@*w"-= -- -'gl -B.o.l
IP
€5
J 12 fint )trt6 :

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vignatha Granites

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Vignatha Granites

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Bioeq Care Private Limited

Mr Mohammed Ameenuddin Saleem versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Sky Bricks Industry

Canara Bank versus M/S Satya Durga Industries

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Laxmi Narasimha Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Burra Mahesh