Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Vijaya Lakshmi

DRT8 Sept 2026OA/265/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's recovery application. The court held that the bank established its claim via an overdraft facility and mortgage created by the borrower, whose heirs are now liable for the outstanding debt, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendants to pay Rs. 56,90,887.66 with future interest at 17.4% p.a.; authorized recovery from mortgaged property and defendant's estate; directed issuance of Recovery Certificate.

City Union Bank Limited versus Vijaya Lakshmi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OSth DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2026 PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER} OA. No.265 OF 2026

¶2

Between :

¶3

City Union Bank Limited, 4-3-7512, HameedPura, Near Nethaji Chowk, Opp to: Big Bazaar, Adilabad - 504 001 Represented bY its Branch^Manager

¶4

Applicant

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Smt. Goka VijaYa^Lakshmi, Wo. Late Goka Mahender^ReddY, Aged: 48 Years,^Female, H.No.7-7-4414811118, Vidya Nagar, Beside Bus DePot, Adilabad-5O4 001.

¶7

Sri Goka Sushanth^ReddY' S/o. Late Goka^{Mahender ReddY,} Aged: 26 Years,^Male, H. No.7-7-4414811118, Vidya Nagar, Beside Bus DePot, Adilabad - 504⁰⁰¹

¶8

(OA. No. 26sl2026)

¶9

Miss. Goka Sanjana Reddy, D/o. Late Goka Mahender Reddy, Aged: 25 Years, Female, H.No.7 -7 -441 481 1 I 1 8, Vidya Nagar, Beside Bus Depot, Adilabad - 504 001

¶10

Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the parties : For The Applicant C. Prabhakar For the Defendant Sri. P.V. Sainath Reserved on 07.09.2026 Pronounced on 08.09.2026 Upload in website on 08.09.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.56,90,gg7.66. ps. ( Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty seven and^paise sixty Six onry) with future rate of interest @17.4Vo^{p.a with} monthry rests from the date of this apprication till the I,F.ot:;malizatio6.and in default for sale of Mortgaged eroperfeU as mentioned,inhe -fl: -'i- ScneOule of property I and ll to - ',''^{': !} OA. , -..ir 0f :)])?{ ,j: 2^r'' .i; .'.^l :,^{- .]} ': .

¶14

(OA. No. 26512026)

¶15

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant no. 1 and Late Goka Mahender Reddy availed OSOD loan facility of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest @14.00%^{p.a and executed OverdraftRules} for^running account daled 27.07.2015 and D.P. Note dated 27.07.2015 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 01.08.2015 and deposited Registered Sale Deed 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 and issued Demand Notice dated 30.07.2024 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 to the defendants. After availing the loan facilities Sri Goka Mahender Reddy died on 07.02.2025 and the Defendants no. 1 to 3 are the legal Heirs of the Late Goka Mahender Reddy. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶16

Sri. P.V. Sainath filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 3.
No representation from Defendants No. 1 to 3 side and WS of
Defendants No. ,,,'.-11'.,.ttq.}a.Rot filed and hence Defendants No. 1 to 3
:,<br>called absent andset expartb.on 07.09.2026.
' ,'
nl ,I:-1: ""'l "-+ a \ '\t.
.' *ii
ll g -c: P |lir ", ii
.,.", 1:'-; i
.1... . ._ ,:.:3.t rl,
"l-'. -i-.. : '" ''., 'r - -- . , - t. : ' .-. ' _:',
:,, -, , -,'
".:. -, i ..,
"'-:r:' ii .'' : ."

¶17

(OA. No. 26sl2025)

¶18

Mr. Mohammed Hassanuddin,^{BranchManager of the Applicant} Bank examined himself as^AW.1 and^{exhibitedrelevant} documents, which are^{markedas Ex.A.1 lo 4.22.}

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the^{ApplicantBank.}

¶20

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?

¶21

Defendants remained exparte.^{To substantiate the case of the} Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the^{ApplicantBank was} examined and he exhibited^{relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to} A.22. ln view of the above, I^hold that^{the Applicant Bankhas} established their claim^{made in} the^{OA against the Defendants} and hence the Applicant Bank^{is entitledto recoverthe claim} made in the OA with future interest and^costs.

¶22

ln the result, the^present OA is allowed^{with costs, as under.}

¶23

The Defendants no. 1 to 3 are^jointly and severally^liableto pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.56,90,887.66'^Ps. ( Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand Eight^Hundred and Eighty Seven and Paise Sixty Six^{Only) with futurerate of} interest @17.4el6''i?{ilf;;ftii.tf1e, date of this application^{till the}

¶24

4
:t
{tti5

¶25

(oA. No. 26sl2026)

¶26

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the schedule of Property I and ll to the OA towards realization of the debt due

¶27

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants no. 1 to 3 towards realization of the debt due. The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed only to the extent of estate devolved upon the Defendants No. 1 to 3 from the deceased Late Goka Mahender Reddy.

¶28

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶29

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

¶30

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the P A., transcribed by her, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open cou( on this the 08ri day of Sep , 2026)

¶33

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER nlva'-* -istt n"s{slrail 5 A,ii-.i,^{I l'.':-'EilAB'AO'}

City Union Bank Limited v. Vijaya Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Vijaya Lakshmi

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Ritish Rao Regulapati

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Srinivasulu Reddy

Mrs Uma Vani Indukuri versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohd.Manzoor Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

Hdfc Bank versus Baljeguden Mohan