Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M Chakrapani

DRT10 Apr 2026OA/326/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of an agricultural loan defaulting by two farmers. The court held the defendants jointly liable to repay the outstanding dues despite pleas of crop failure due to drought. The bank is entitled to enforce the mortgage and proceed against the defendants' properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,96,594.54 with future interest. Bank entitled to enforce mortgage on land and proceed against defendants' properties.

Union Bank of India versus M Chakrapani — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF April, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(Hons.), 14.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 326 OF 2025

¶4

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA Bathalapalli (Mandal)(Village), Ananthapur Dist Rep by its Sr. Manager and Principal Officer

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M Chakrapani S/o M Anjaneyulu, Aged:60 Years (Male), Occ: Agriculture, R/o 1-55, OC Colony, Sanjeevapuram (V) Bathalapalli (M), Ananthapuram (Dist) AP-515661.

¶8

2, lvl Ramakanth S/o 14. Pedda Hanmanth Aged: 60 Years (Male), Occ: Agriculture, R/o Sanjeevapuram (V), Bathalapalli^(M), Ananthapu ra m (Dist) AP-515661

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P. Balaji Counsel for Defendant No.1: lYs. S. Anuradha Defenda nt No.2 : Ex-parte

¶11

:: ORDER::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recoveryof a sum of} Rs.25,96,594.54^ps with future interest @^{l8o/op.a, from the defendants1} & 2^jointly and severally with monthly^{rests from the date of application till} the date of realisation along with costs, and^{in default, sale of O.A.} mortgaged^property.

¶13

The averments of the applicant bank,^{as stated in the OA, briefly are} that Defendant availed an Agri Term^Loan of Rs.10^{lakhs,securedby} creation of a mortgage over agricultural^{land admeasurlng5'05 acres,} ,/r,-Y"t\L1.,,.-,o.fu.Lt

¶14

OA. No.326/202s

¶15

situated at Mushtooru^{(V), Bathalapally (N4), AnanthapurDistrict, by way of} a registered deed of simple^{mortgage executed on 30.03.2016,and further} secured by hypothecation of crops and^{receivables subsequently, the} Applicant Bank approved and sanctioned an additional^{CC & cK (Cash} Credit / Crop/Kharif) facility of^{Rs.1,30,000/-on 09.07 2021. The} defendants executed loan documents/agreements.^{ThoughDefendants} were regular in repayment initially, but later^{became irregular, on account} of which the account was classified^{as an NPA,and the ApplicantBank was} constrained to approach this Tribunal for^{recovery of the outstandingdues.}

¶16

The written statement filed by the 1't^{defendant.The averments,} briefly, are that after taking the agricultural^loan by^followingdue procedure and nvested the entire amount in raising a banana^plantation. However, defendant deny any intention to^{evade repayment and contend} that, due to severe drought, heavy winds, 9ales, hailstorms,^and unfavourable climatic conditions in the drought^{prone Ananthapur district} (one of the lowest rainfall regions in India, second only to Jaisalmer, Rajasthan), the banana crop-described as a three-year weak cropcompletely failed. As a result, all^plants died, leading to total loss of investment. Being small farmers, the defendants state that they could not recover from the repeated losses and have now shifted to a milk vending business for survival. Defendant asserts inability to repay is neither wilful nor wanton but stems from genuine agricultural distress and natural calamities beyond their control. Defendants further express willingness to repay the loan and request the Court to grant a period of 5 to 6 years for repayment in instalments, reduce the principal amount to some extent, and waive the interest, keeping in view his law-abiding nature and poor financial condition. The defendants hiqhliqht the Supreme Court's observations on the liberal attltude generally shown by banks towards industrialists in respect of loan waivers and rescheduling, and seek similar liberal and compassionate consideration.from the Court in favour of small farmer affected by naturat calamities.^, ffiqlt'

¶17

OA. No. 32612025

¶18

In order to prove its case, Applicant^{Bankexamined by Mr. Y. Hari} Krishna, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked^{17 documentsthroughhim} as Exhibits A-1 to A-17.

¶19

In order to substantiate his defence, the 1st defendant^Mr.M Chakrapani examined himself as^{DW-1 and markedno documents'}

¶20

Though the 2nd defendant entered appearance^{through a counsel,} failed to file written statement and adduce^{evidence. As such after affording} ample of opportunities, the 2nd defendant^{was set ex-partevide docket} order dated 30.03.2026.

¶21

Heard the Learned counsel for the applicant^{bank whereas the right} of D1 advancing arguments was forfeited on^{15.12.2025after affording} ample opportunity. Perused the material^{placed on record.}

¶22

The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled^for the^{OA claim} against the Defendants and O.A. schedule^property?

¶24

1st Defendant is not disputing availment^{of loan, creationof mortgage} and default in repayment. What he denies^{is willful default statingthat} failure to repay the loan was due to^{losses in agriculturalactivityon} account of drought and climatic^{conditionsand natural calamities.The} applicant^produced 17 documents^{and marked them through AW-1 as proof} of its claim. The evidence affidavit^{of AW-1 coupled with recitalsin Exhibits} A-1 to A-17 remains unchallenged and^{un-rebutted.Hence,I hold thatthe} defendants 1 & 2 are^jointly and^{severally liable to pay to the applicant} bank the claim made in the OA^{with futureinterest and costs.}

¶25

Though the defendant requests time to^{repaythe loan, it is within the} discretion of the applicant bank to^{grant time for NPA accounts. Apparently} the defendants are agriculturalists^{and thereforethe applicantbank may} consider if such request is^{placed by the defendants before it'^XKsA} ty' ''.i'"

¶26

OA. No.326l202s

¶27

¶28

In the result, the^present Original Application No.326/2025 is allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.25,96,594.54 ps with future interest @1-l.90o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same for realization of dues;

¶31

iii) the applicant is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of the defendants 1 & 2 for realization of dues; and

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

L2. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

t4. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶36

(Typed to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April, 2026) .

¶37

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M Chakrapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M Chakrapani

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. S N Agro Trading.

Ms Ramsethu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

K Veerender Reddy versus City Union Bank Limited

Ms Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak versus State Bank of India

Varalakshmamma Powerlooms versus City Union Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mullaguri Rammohan