Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. R.R. Gundlapalli

DRT15 Apr 2026OA/329/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the bank was not barred by limitation and granted decree for recovery from defendants along with interest and right to proceed against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs.26,98,530.92 with 24% p.a. interest; costs awarded; recovery certificate issued.

What the court decided

Union Bank of India versus M/S. R.R. Gundlapalli — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE tsrH DAy OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.329 ol2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Branch at Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla district, Telangana Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. R.R. Gundlapalli, Prop: Sri Gundlapalli Ramanujam, s/o Sri Gundla Ramaiah, major, male, D.No.8-6-39,

¶10

Nehrunagar, Sircilla,

¶11

Rajanna Sircilla dist - 505 301.

¶12

Sri Gundlapalli Ramanujam, Prop: M/s. RR Gundlapalli, S/o Gundlapalli Ramaiah, major, Male, D.No.8-6-39, Nehrunagar,

¶13

Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla dist- 505 301.

¶14

Sri Cherala Srinivas, S/o Cherala Rajesham, major, Male, H.No.7-4-t38, Subhashnagar, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla dist- 505 301.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Pa

¶17

For the Applica Sri P. Balaji Defendants ri K. Harikishan

¶18

(OA.No.329/2024)

¶19

Orders reservedon	L3.04.2026
Pronouncedon	L5.04.2026
Uploaded inwebsiteon	15.04.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,98,53o.92ps (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty and paise Ninety Two only) with future interest @ 24o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed credit facilities from 2001 for the purpose of working capital and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. The defendants availed cash credit of Rs.29.00 lakhs and two separate term loans of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/-. The said facilities were primarily secured by mortgage of schedule property, The defendants executed demand promissory note, continuity letter, letter of^general lien account interest agreement etc on 09.02.2023. The defendants mortgaged the immovable property in favour of Applicant

¶23

bank and d e tile deeds. It is submitted by the Applicant bank ailed the said loan facilities and failed to /,P the le, as such the account was classified i[E^{15 nPB} 2U2r^* \fu^^h.sP

¶24

(oA.No.329/2024)

¶25

as NPA and issued notices. Inspite of demands made by Applicantthe defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued notices, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.26,98,530.92ps (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty and paise Ninety Two only) with future interest @ 24o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realisation. Hence the OA.

¶26

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants contended that the OA is barred by limitation. The defendants admitted about the availing of two separate term loans from Applicant bank. It is contended that the challenging the demand notice dated t5.04.2024 in respect of schedule property of defendant no.2, the defendant no.1 filed SA.No.180/2024 before DRT-I, Hyderabad and obtained interim orders wherein it was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs which was complied. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶27

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶28

Heard the arguments.

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶30

i) Whether the Applicant claim as made in OA
6
against the defendan &
&
ii) To what relief ?
15rpn
rrl rr
q
Point No.i):
i&r,""r*$ri'
'Tlr-g?:;"'e;7

¶31

(oA.No.32sl2024)

¶32

Mr. A.S. Kumar, Chief Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.20 are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶33

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 2nd defendant examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents, his evidence is in noway helpful to him, The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶34

Point No.ii)

¶35

In the inal application is allowed with costs as ,1rN t eno#t[ ffifl46 a ointly and severally liable to pay to 26,98,530.92ps (Rupees Twenty

¶36

(OA.No.329/2024)

¶37

Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty and^paise

¶38

Ninety Two only) with future interest @ 24o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶39

9, The applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶41