Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Jagadamba Chain of Pharmacy

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 74,49,018/- comprising outstanding open cash credit and term loan limits from a proprietary firm and its proprietor.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed. Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 74,49,018/- with interest and costs. Recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Jagadamba… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 16rH DAy OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.275 ot 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

Union Bank of India, Bhainsa Branch, Telangana State -504 103. Represented by its Senior Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Sri Jagadamba Chain of Pharmacy, Represented by its Prop. Kadam Bhagiratha Bhai, D. No.4-3 -2t6/2A/2/3, Narsimha Road, Bhainsa, Nirmal district, TS - 504 103.

¶8

Mrs. Kadam Bhagiratha Bhai, w/o K. Laxman Rao,

¶9

D. No.4-3 -8412, Gandhi gunj, Bhainsa, Nirmal dist, TS -504 103.

¶10

Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant

¶13

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant Sri V. Raghu For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on tL.02.2026 Pronounced 16.02.2026 Uploaded t7.02.2026

¶14

1 $ rFB^?{!?6 A.l,

¶15

(OA.No.275 of 2024)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.74,4g,Olg/_ (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand and Eighteen only) i.e.,

¶18

a) A sum of Rs.23,66,478/- in respect of occ rimit with interest @ 12.75o/o p.a plus 2o/o penal interest p.a with monthly rests from 0L.03.2024 till the date of realization;

¶19

b) A sum of Rs.50,81,540/- in respect of rerm loan limit with interest @ L2.750/o p.a prus 20/o penar interest p.a with monthry rests from 0t.03.2024 till the date of realization;

¶20

As per the averments in the apprication, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietary firm represented by its proprietor / defendant no.2 availed open cash credit of Rs.22.50 lakhs and term loan of Rs.52.50 rakhs on 08.03.2019. Defendant no.2 executed composite loan agreement and agreed to repay the occ limit with minimum interest of Lt.45o/o p.a. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 0g.10.2023 and regar notice was issued on 7r.12.2023. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defenda_nts di.d:ilbl.llear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Sri V. Narender

¶22

(OA.No.275 of 2024)

¶23

sri Arpit More, chief Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶26

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to A.13. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointry and severa[y riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.74r4g,Ola/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand and Eighteen only) i.e.,

¶29

in respect of OCC limit with interest 03.2024 till the date of realization;

¶30

(OA.No.27s of 2024)

¶31

b) A sum of Rs.50,81,540/in respect of Term loan limit with interest @ 12.75o/o p.a from 01.03.2024 till the date of realization;

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶35

of receipt of order.

¶36

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the p A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of Feb, 2026)

¶39

sd/-

¶40

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶41

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

1E Fr8 2028

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Jagadamba Chain of Pharmacy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Jagadamba Chain of Pharmacy

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 Sri. Sankatala Nagendra

Ms Young Stars and Little Stars Impressions and Another versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sri Chiluka Rakesh

Sa Khazem versus Aptus value housing finance India Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Thirumala Traders

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited