Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s v N Interiors

DRT5 Mar 2026OA/1/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 22,79,803/- with future interest and costs against the respondents, liable to pay jointly and severally based on examined evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 22,79,803/- with future interest; applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/s v N Interiors — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

,'ORIGINAL"

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE sth DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 01 OF 2026

¶5

Union Bank of India, Madhura Nagar Branch, # 8-3-224/2/L1t, Gt, G2, G3, M R Residency, Yousufguda Main Road, Madhura Nagar, Hydera bad-500045, T. S.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s V N Interiors,

¶9

Prop: Mr. Manthena Madhava Krishnam Raju, S/o M Venkata Raju, Male, aged 48^years, Flat No.101, Royal Cedar Apartments, Plot No. HIG 441 & 442, 6th Phase, JNTU Road, KPHB Colony, Circle-34, Hyderabad-500072- TS.

¶10

& Also at:

¶11

M/s V N Interiors,

¶12

Prop: Mr. Manthena Madhava Krishnam Raju, S/o M Venkata Raju, Male, aged 48^years, Plot No.973, Narayani Apartments, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Near Vasanth Nagar, V Bus stop Hydernagar,

¶13

Medchal- Malkajgiri - 500085- TS.

¶14

Doe€^{otrderdoKJ"''f}l$ 4' l{"MoJhavo-kri<v*-ro^{Ror- ('*"} &rNy &.M/sVNInteriors, Prop: Mr. Manthena Madhava Krishnam Raju S/o M Venkata Raju, Male, aged 48^years,

¶15

Plot No. 973, Narayani APartments, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Near Vasanth Nagar^{VB Bus stop,} Hydernagar, Medchal-Malkajgiri - 500085 -^TS.

& Also at:

lfra,u

oA.NO.0u2025

M/s V N Interiors, Prop: Mr. Manthena^{Madhava KrishnamRaju} S/o M Venkata^{Raju, Male, aged 48 years,} Flat No. 101, Royal Cedar^Apartments, Plot No. HIG 441 &442,6th^Phase, JNTU Road, KPHB^{ColonY,Circle-34,} Hyderabad-500072-TS.

¶20

Mrs Manthena Rama^Devi, W/o Mr. M Madhava^{Krishnam Raju,} Aged 40^years, female, Flat No. 101, Royal Cedar^Apartments, Plot No. HIG 441 &442,6th^Phase, INTU Road, KPHB ColonY,^Circle-34, Hyderabad - 5OOO72 - TS.

¶21

.'.'Defendants

¶22

: Mr. Srinivasa Rao Chakrala Counsel for the Applicant

¶23

Counsel for the Defendants^{: Ex-parte}

¶24

:: ORDER ::

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs. 22,79,803/- with^{future interest} @12%^{p.a. from} 09.04.2025 till the date of^{realizationalong with costs and, in} default, sale of OA hypothecated^assets.

¶26

Summon served on Defendant^Nos.1 to^{3 and were set exparte} on 25.02.2026 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶27

The Applicant Bank examined^{Mr. R. Rama Krishna, Senior} Branch Manager, as AW-1 and^qgrked B^{documents through} him as Ex.A,lto Ex,A.8. 6W"

¶28

oA.NO.0u2026

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant reported no oral arguments but filed written arguments. Perused the written argument filed by the applicant and material placed on record.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated Assets?

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.B marked on behalf of the Applicant 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 Applicant Bank with future interest and costs,

¶33

In the result, the present Original Application No.01/2026 is allowed as under:^-

¶34

i) The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3^jointly and severally are liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs.22,79,803/- with future interest @l2o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶35

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 reatise its OeOt.1fu*

¶36

oA.NO.01/2025

¶37

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

¶38

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶39

a The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within^{2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concerned.}

¶42

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by mqig.the open court on thisthes'hDayof March,2026).

¶43

/4%r*

¶44

lnAM-rsHwnn^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/s v N Interiors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s v N Interiors

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

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Isarayal

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Rachineni Gangadevi

Ms Thulasi Traders Rep by its Prop Thulaseewar Reddy versus Shriram Finance Limited

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

Bank of India versus M/s. Venkata Ramana Laxmi Wlccs

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Suryaprabha Agro Farms