Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Bhuvaneswari Rice Corporation

DRT23 Jul 2026OA/32/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union Bank of India filed an Original Application for recovery of Rs. 3,72,95,593.43 with interest from several defendants involved in a rice corporation. The Tribunal allowed the application, holding the borrowers and guarantors liable to pay the dues and permitting action against hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendants to pay Rs. 3,72,95,593.43 with interest; permitted realization via hypothecated/mortgaged properties and against personal properties of guarantors.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Bhuvaneswari Rice… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.32 ol 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Branch office at Kodad, Suryapet road, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 206. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Bhuvaneswari Rice Corporation,

¶10

Represented by its partners, i) Challa Saidaiah, s/o Seethaiah ii) Challa Sasikala, W/o Saidaiah iii) Challa Bhanu^prakash, S/o Saidaiah, iv) Challa Kiran Kumar, S/o Saidaiah, Office at D.No.5-188,

¶11

Komarabanda village, Kodad mandal, Suryapet district - 508 206.

¶12

Mr. Challa Saidaiah, s/o Seethaiah, aged about 69 years, occ: business, male,

¶13

R/o H.No. 12-71, Srinivasa

¶14

Nagar, beside market yard,

¶15

Kodad, Suryapet district - 5OB 206.

¶16

Challa Sasikala, w/o C. Saidhaiah,

¶17

aged about major, occ: business, female, R/o H.No.12-71, Srinivasa Nagar, beside market yard, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 206.

¶18

jl*
li '-

¶19

Sri Challa Bhanu Prakash, s/o Sri C. Saidhaiah,

¶20

(oA.No.32l2026)

¶21

aged about 45 years, occ: business, female, R/o H.No. 12-71, Srinivasa Nagar, beside market yard, Kodad, Suryapet district - 5Og 206.

¶22

Sri Challa Kiran Kumar s/o Sri C. SaiOnaian,-'' aged about 43 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.No.12-71, Srinivasa Nagar, beside market yard, Kodad, Suryapet district - 5OB 206.

¶23

Sri Challa Amarendar, S/o Sri C. Saidhaiah, Aged about major, occ: business, Male, R/o H.No.12-71, Srinivasa Nagar, beside market yard, Kodad, Suryapet district - 5Og 206.

¶24

Smt Challa Srujana, W/o C. Amarendar, Aged major, occ: business, Female, R/o H.No.12-71, Srinivasa Nagar, beside market yard, Kodad, Suryapet district - 5OB 206.

¶25

B. Smt Challa Madhuri, W/o Bhanu Prakash, aged major, Occ: business, female, R/o H.No. 12-71, Srinivasa Nagar, beside market yard, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 206.

¶26

M/s. Sri Bhuvaneswari parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Represented by its partners, il Challa Saidaiah, s/o Seethaiah, ii) Challa Shashikala,,w/o Sa iii) Challa Kiran kumar, S/ iv) Challa Amarender, sf v) Challa Bhanu^pra ,fr/o sa

¶27

vii) vi) Challa Challa Srujana, Madhuri, WW Am a render-'* Snang^BabEFhT1r26

¶28

Office at D.No.5-1 ;f,(omarabanda

¶29

Village, Kodad ma District - 508 206. Defendants

¶30

(oA.No.32l2026)

¶31

Counsel for the parties:

¶32

For the Applicant Smt Tarangini^pisapati Defendants Sri Hari Prasad^podila Orders reserved on 2t.07.2026 Pronounced on 23.07.2026 Uploaded in website on 23.07.2026

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3,72,g5,5g3.43ps (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Two Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three and paise Forty Three only) with interest @ 10olo p.a with monthry rests from 30.10.2025 ti, the date of rearization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶35

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant no.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partners/ defendants no. 2 to 5 who stood as borrowers/ guarantors/ mortgagors, defendants no. 6 to g been guarantors/ mortgagors and defendant no.9 its partners (defendants no. 2 to B) have availed The defendants hypothecated and mentioned properties in

¶37

(oA.No.32l2026)

¶38

executed composite agreement dated 24.02.2020, general form of guarantee dated 04.02.2020, demand promissory note etc in favour of applicant bank. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the defendants availed the said loan facilities and faited to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 27.03.2025. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued recall notice dated 26.Lt.2025, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.3,72,85r583.43ps (Rupees Three crores seventy Two Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three and paise Forty Three only) with interest @ 10% p.a with monthly rests from 30.10.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the oA.

¶39

The Defendants filed written statement and admitted about availing the credit facility from Applicant bank. It is submitted that the defendants faced unforeseen situations in receiving amounts from Government, hence could not get the account regutarised. It is contended that the Applicant bank classified the account as NpA without following the guidelines of RBI. It is further contended that of defendants on blank proforma I of OA. ' h;t t" + 3. n record.

¶40

(oA.No.32l2026)

¶41

4. Heard the arguments.

¶42

Mr. N. Siva Rama Krishna, Manager / AW.1 is examined on beharf of the Applicant. Exhibits A,1 to A.31 are marked through AW.1. Defendant No'6 examined himserf as DW.1 and not exhibited any documents.

¶43

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶44

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶45

ii) To what relief ?

¶46

Point No.i):

¶47

On behalf of the applicant bank, Sri N. Siva Rama Krishna, Manager who is examined as AW.1 deposed clearly about the liability of the defendants and also about the execution of various documents filed by the applicant bank. AW.1 is not cross examined by the defendants. So the evidence of AW.1 is not challenged by the defendants. Even though defendant no.6 exa lf as DW.1, his evidence is no way helpful to the d g the contentions raised by the defendants. / it- ftt C- E: ) AW.1 wa jot &o3, JiJj.";iii"a the defendants. Even though the defenda as DW.1 and not filed ,htq'"-urinea;f;1 ' i..r,^{".:.- '9} -'a.'a^. any documents, his helpful to him, The

¶48

(OA.No.32l2026)

¶49

defendants having taken the prea that the appricant bank did not foilow the RBI guidelines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, failed to place any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Appricant bank makes crear that ail the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normar course of transaction. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entifled to claim the oA amount from defendants. Therefore, the oA craim deserves to be ailowed against the defendants.

¶50

Point No.ii)

¶51

B. In the result, the present original apprication is ailowed with costs as u nder:

¶52

The Defendants are joinily and severaily riabre to pay to Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.3,72,g5,593.43ps (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Two Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three and paise Forty Three only) with interest @ 10olo p.a from 30.10,2025 till the date of realization ;

¶53

9' The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movab properties as mentioned in the schedules to OA debt due; t * r' ilfi -l+

¶54

(oA.No.32l202G)

¶55

The Appricant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants no. 2 to g and properties of defendants no.1 and 9 firms towards realization of the debt due;

¶56

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

¶57

L2. The Applicant shaI fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶58

Issue Recovery certiflcate accordingly.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶60

(Dictated to the P A" transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23d day of )uty,2026)

¶61

sdl-

¶62

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDlNG OFFICER

¶63

A,:WW

¶64

DRT.I, HYN5P.ASAO,

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Bhuvaneswari Rice Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Bhuvaneswari Rice Corporation

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Laxmi Textiles

State Bank of India versus Hard Stone Tours and Travels

State Bank of India versus M/S. Strontium Ferriten India Ltd.

Mr Thatipally Vijayalaxmi versus Dcb Bank Limited

Shobha Gupta And Babitha Gupta versus SFMGIndia Home Finance Company Ltd.

Ms Tirumala Venkateshwara Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus Vardhaman Mahila Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.