Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Maneesha Enterprises

DRT1 Sept 2026OA/211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of outstanding dues and future interest from the respondent borrowers, finding their claim established by evidence uncontroverted by the respondents who forfeited their right to appear.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 35,82,838.90 plus future interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Maneesha Enterprises — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD i DATED THIS THE 1sr DAy oF SEeTEMBER, 2026 I I PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A., PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 211 OF 2024

¶3

Union Bank of India, Bachupally Branch, Sy.No.3&6MLRComplex Bachupally X Road, Bachupally Village Qutbullapur^{Mandal,RR District} Telangana.

¶4

.....Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Maneesha Enterprises, Prop: Sri. Pasunooti Manisha, F. No. 32-t54, Shapur Nagar Jeedimetla, Hyderabad Medchal Malkajgiri District -500 055

¶7

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER Dt t7.04.2026 IN IA No. L242/26)

¶8

Pasunooti Manisha, W/o. Pasunooti Ravi, Age Major, Gender Female Plot No.430 @ 43L, Flat No.G-l, Brindavanam Apartment, Opp: JNTU Kukatpally, Pragathi Nagar, Medchal Malkajgiri District-500090.

¶9

¶10

...[)eft-ndants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant M/s. Alluri Krishnam Raju Counsel for Defendants M/s. K. Muralidhar

¶12

:: ORDER::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum bf Rs. 35,82,838.e0 ps rrom the Defe^o"1 severally wrth ruture /7ffii[

OA No.21Ll2O24

2of5

lnteres|^{(d 12.80%P.a. with} monthly rest from 12.05.2023^{titl the date of} realisatiorr along with^costs.

¶20

?.^{The averments of the Applicant Bank, as statedin the OA, in brief,} are that 1't defendant^{being the proprietary concern represented by the 2nd} defendant , approached^{the applicant bank for term loan of Rs. 35 Lakhs and} pxecutcd necessary documents.^{However,defendants committed persistent} flefault.;^{in repayment of the loan instalments,resulting in the loan account} peing,Clqssified^{as a NPA on 11.05.2023. Thereafter,the applicantbank} issue$ fl lroan^{RecallNotice dated 2t.t2.2023 calling upon the defendants} to discharqe the^{outstanding dues. Despite serviceof the said notice,the} i, defeq,lants i^failed to^{regularise the account or repay the outstanding} pmount, compelling the applicant^{bank to file the present OA seeking} recovery of the outstanding^dues.

¶21

3 ,, t" Defendant No.1 & 2^{filed a Written Statement, contestingthe} maintairrability of the^{OA both on facts and in law. The Defendantscontend} that Defendant No.2^{was induced and cheated by third parties, namely Ravi} Nayak and^{pavan Kumar, who represented themselves as vendors of textile} rnachinery and assisted^{him in preparing documents for availingthe MSME} loan. It is alleged^{that, on their instructions, Defendant No.2 issued Cheque} No.360469^for Rs.35,00,000/-^{in favour of M/s. Express Enterprises,but} the promised machinery^{was never supptiedand the said persons,in} collusion with officials of^{the Applicant Bank, allegedly caused false} verification of the security^{property at H.No.32-154,ShapurNagar,} Ieedir,netla,^{Hyderabad,by using fabricatedphotographs.The Defendants} further corltend that the^{loan amount was disbursedthrough a Demand} t' Draft:handed over to^{Ravi Nayak, who failed to supply the machinery,} therebyt,causing ,i^loss to^{Defendant No.2. It is furtheralleged that, upon} before the oiscovering^{the allegedfraud,Defendant No.r r"Wints}

¶22

l:,] oA No.2 tL/2024 , i ,.i,

¶23

3of 5

¶24

, l

¶25

Applicant Bank and the police, and that FIR No .29 of 2024 was regristered before the SHO, Bachupally against Ravi Nayak and Pavan Kumar, whenQin i investigation is stated to be pending. The Defendants also raise progedui]al iii objections contending that no prior legal or statutory notice Was iissueO before institution of the O.A., and that the Applicant Bank hais failed to furnish proper particulars of the claim, including the break-up of the allegEdI dues and applicable rate of interest. On these grounds, the Defendants seek dismissal of the O.A. with costs.

¶26

i i: : :,, rl 4. In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Mr. KanrJri Venkata Sai Pavan, Branch Manager as AW-1 and marked 10 documents il through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-10. i 'i ' I i,

¶27

The right of the defendants to adduce evidence rryas forfeited vide docket order dated 10.11 .2025, after affording sufficient opporirnities.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank., The' Defendbnts,J ,1 despite being granted ample opportunities, failed to advance oral arguments and, accordingly, their right stood forfeited vide docket order dated 06.02.2026. Perused the material placed on record.

¶29

r,i

¶30

Learned Counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments places reliance upon Exs.A-1 to Exs.A-10 marked through appliicaht evidence (AW-1) as proof of claim of the bank .:ncj su5 nitteo'that'the applicant bank is entitled for recovery of the outstanding amounli together : I with future interest and costs.

¶31

B. The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶32

Whether the Applicant Bank is^entitled for the OA cla im asainst the Defendants? frY*

l{,

OA No.2ttl2024

4of5

g: ,i -Ar stated supra, the defendants, apart from making^{generaldenials} !n^{t,he \t/ritten Statementand disputingthe claim of the applicantbank,} hurg^{failed tosubstantiatetheir defence by adducing any oral or} docunre ntary evidence^{in supportof their contentions.The Defendantsalso} did,not choose to cross-examine^{AW-1 so as to discredit the testimony of} the witness or challenge the^{genuinenessand correctness of Exs.A-1to A-} 10 relied upon by the Applicant^{Bank. It is well settledthat merepleadings} or bald assertions,^{unsupportedby evidence, cannot be accepted as proof} of tf,re facts^{pleaded. On the contrary, the Applicant Bank has placed on} record both oral and^{documentary evidence in support of its claim.The} testimony of AW-1, coupled^{with the documentary evidence markedas} Exs.A- 1 to A- 10, has^{remained uncontrovertedand unrebutted.} Accordingly, this Tribunal is^{satisfiedthat the Applicant Bank has} successfully established^{its claim. Hence,Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are held} jointly and severally liable to pay the O.A. claim to the^{ApplicantBank} together with future interest^{and costs, in accordance with law.}

¶38

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo.2Lt/2024 is allowed} as under:^-

¶39

(i) The Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are^jointly and^{severally liable} to pay to the Appticant^Bank a^{sum of Rs. 35,82,838.90} ps with future interest rate @ L0.45o/o^p.a. simple^from 12.05.2023 till the date of realization;

¶40

(ii) the applicant is entitled to^proceed against^{the person} and properties of the defendants^{for realization of its} dues; and ffia,*

¶41

5of5

¶42

(iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs;

¶43

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within the date of receipt of this Order.

¶44

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly,

¶45

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the or"n .orri on this the 1" day of Septernber,2026)

oA 217/24 L,

0s.08.2026

Sri S Ramesh representing AKR counsel for applicant stated he has already submitted arguments. No representation for defendant. Hence, their right of arguments is hereby forfeited. For orders, call on 12.08.2026.

¶51

t2.08.2026 Orders not^passed due to heavy^{bench work. For orders, call} on 0 t.09 .2026.

¶52

fit'rv' P.O.

¶53

01.09.202 6 Orders^pronounced, vide separate sheets. In the result OA.No.271"/2024 is allowed with costs. Issue Recovery

¶54

t-ertificate accord i n^g I^y

¶55

a2K">s

¶56

P. O.

Union Bank of India v. Maneesha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Maneesha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mdh Motors Private Limited versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Nagella Rama Krishna Reddy versus Idbi Bank

Lakky reddy Rajashekar Reddy versus Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Naskon Associates

Hdfc Bank versus Narayana Reddy

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Manikanta Agencies