Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S Venkateswara Traders

DRT11 Feb 2026OA/329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application by City Union Bank Ltd. against four defendants. The bank was declared entitled to recover a demand of approximately Rs. 36.46 lakhs along with future interest and costs from the proprietorial firm, loan obligors, and guarantors. The court also granted permission to enforce security interests over mortgaged and hypothecated properties and

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 36,46,523.00 with future interest; permission to auction/enforce security; recovery certificate issued.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Venkateswara… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 329 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

City Union Bank Ltd. Warangal Branch, Warangal

¶6

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Venkateshwara Traders, Rep by its Proprietor,

Mr. K.V. Naveen,

Vajinepalli Complex,

H.No. 12-8-138,

SVN Road, Warangal.,

Mr. Kokkula Venkata Naveen, S/o. Sri Kokkula Shankaraiah, Aged 49 years, Male,

¶15

R/o. H.No. 4-296, KC Colony, Bheemaram, Karimnagar Main Road, Warangal.

¶16

Mrs. Kokkula Venkata Radhika, Wo. Mr. Kokkula Venkata Naveen

¶17

Aged 45 years, Female,

¶18

R/o. H.No. 4-296,KC Colony, Bheemaram, Karimnagar Main Road, Warangal.

¶19

(oA. No. 32912025)

¶20

Mrs. K. Jayalakshmi, Wo. Sri Kokkula Shankaraiah, Aged 71 years, Female, R/o. H.No. 4-296,KC Colony, Bheemaram, Karimnagar Main Road, Warangal. Defendants

¶21

Counsel forthe parties:
ForTheApplicant	M/s.TrivikramChitturu
FortheDefendant	Exparte
Reservedon	04.02.2026
Pronouncedon	11.02.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	11.02.2026

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.36,4G,523.00 ps. (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three Only) i.e a sum of _

¶24

(i) Rs. 27,27,926.00 Ps. being OLCC Loan Account with future int p.a with monthly rests from the date of fiting of thi realization, tn i,^,i: fi l :' ,rrornn{S \e

¶25

(oA. No. 329l202s)

¶26

(ii) Rs. 1,98,510.00 Ps. being ECLGS Loan Account with future interest @9.25% p.a with monthly rests from the date of filing of this OA till the date of realization,

¶27

(iii) Rs. 2,40,934.00 Ps. being ECLGS Loan Account with future interest @9.25% p.a with monthry rests from the date of firing of this OA till the date of realization,

¶28

(iv) Rs. 4,79,053.00 Ps. being Vehicle Loan Account with future interest @11-00yo p.a with monthry rests from the date of firing of this OA till the date of realization,

¶29

and in default for sale of Mortgaged property, Hypothecated Movables and Hypothecated Vehicle as mentioned in the Schedule of Property I to lil to OA.

lrP

As per ihe averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a^{proprietorship} Firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant no. 2 availed OLCC Loan facility of Rs.12.00 Lakhs with interest and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 27.03.2009 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed

¶34

of Guarantee dated 2l.O3.2OOg in favor of the nk. The Defendant no. 4 created Equitable rtgage refully mentioned in Schedule of property I to the TT/F^*

¶35

11FEB

¶36

(oA. No. 329/202s)

¶37

OA and executed Memorandum of Mortgage by Deposit of Tifle deeds dated 04.04.2008 in favor of the Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 1 deposited Title deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed ECLGS facility of Rs.4.00 Lakhs and executed Supplementary Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 10.07.2020 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 4 stood as a Guarantor and executed Agreement of Guarantee dated 10.07.2020 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed ECLGS 1.0 extension facility of Rs.4.00 Lakhs and executed Supplementary Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 29.03.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 4 stood as a Guarantor and executed Agreement of Guarantee dated 29.03.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Vehicle loan of Rs.8.90 Lakhs and executed loan documents in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed Agreement of Guarantee dated 14.09.2017 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 on 16.05.2023 and issued Demand notice dated 18.1 1.2023 under section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not "W 'tlnding. Hence this OA. 'r{ ii^* 1,..i j :i 11 FEB 2[20 ; 4 -*J;,ru$W \

¶38

(oA. No. 329/202s)

¶39

3' Defendants cailed absent and set exparte on 11.0g.2025 and 20.01.2026.

¶40

Sri Tejavath Veeranna, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.22.

¶41

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶42

The point that arise for consideration IS whether the Applicant bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶43

7' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.22. tn view of the above, I hotd that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entiiled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶44

11 wg rrn
?
) -) a.,L /
l^ *,***SII)'^r

¶45

(OA. No. 329/202s)

¶46

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶47

The Defendants No. 1 to 4 arejoinily and severaily riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.36,46,523.00 ps. (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Fofi Six Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three Only) i.e a sum of _

¶48

(i) Rs. 27,27,926.00 ps. being OLCC Loan Account with future interest @15.2syo p.a from the date of firing of this oA tiil the date of realization,

¶49

(ii) Rs. 1,98,610.00 Ps. being ECLGS Loan Account with future interest @9.25% p.a from the date of fiting of this OA till the date of realization,

¶50

(iii) Rs. 2,40,934.00 Ps. being ECLGS Loan Account with future interest @9.25% p.a from the date of filing of this OA till the date of realization,

¶51

(iv) Rs. 4,79,053.00 Ps. being Vehicle Loan Account with future interest @11.00Yo p.a from the date of firing of this oA tifl the

¶52

,f--p
11 tll
6
'i.
"f,
. .rrr+nx$.$

¶53

(oA. No. 329l202s)

¶54

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property, Hypothecated Movables and Hypothecated Vehicles as mentioned in the Schedule of Property I to lll to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶55

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants No. 2 to 4 and properties of Defendant No. 1 Firm and towards realization of the debt due.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

lssue Recovery Certificate 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^'11lh day of Feb, 2026)

¶61

6*&<br>l\Jl}<br>[J 11 FEs rrn :
s-:":',';
t .;'r-,*t
,'",.,1:ur,"..et9/
.: i -. "; f.-; .. ., nrra.y'' ..,.,

¶62

sd/-
(G. coPrcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
RUE COPY
9
^----<flfr
iffi
- -- . irYncptFa,

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S Venkateswara Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S Venkateswara Traders

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. G. Ravi Kumar @ Gaddam Ravi

State Bank of India versus Mr. Boya Srinivasulu

Canara Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Devi Textiles

Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal versus Canara Bank

Vaishnavi Agarwal versus Canara Bank

M S Dinesh Jewelers versus Canara Bank