Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Goli Ramraghava Reddy

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/332/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presiding Officer allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application for recovery of debt. With defendants absent, the court held them jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed sum with interest and costs, also recognizing the bank's right to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.64,52,665/- with interest and costs; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Goli Ramraghava… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MIT,IESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), N4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 332 OF 2026

¶5

Union Bank of India., Kompally Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sri. Goli Ramraghava Reddy

¶9

S/o. Narsimha Reddy Goli, Aged about 69 Years, R/o. Villa No.35, Anthem Villa, Laxmi Naga r, Gundlapocha mpa lly Hyderabad - 500014.

¶10

Also at:-

¶11

H.No.3-5-106/PCl201, Baghameer Ramalayam Road, Kukatpally Hyderabad - 500072.

¶12

Smt. Goli lyothi Wo.^{Ra mraghavaReddy} Goli Aged about 55 Years, R/o. Villa No.35 Anthem Villa, Laxmi Nagar

¶13

Gu ndlapocha mpally, Hyderabad - 500014.

¶14

Also at:-

¶15

H. No.3-5- 106/PCl201, Bagha meer Ramalayam Road, Kukatpa lly Hyderabad - 500072.

¶16

...Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P. Naga Durga Prasad
Defendants : Ex- Darte'
'/ n-,r__-_...I
:...t '

oA.NO.33212026

:: CLLLEL ::

The Applicant Bank Rled the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.64,52,665/- from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. with monthly rests from 01.02.2026 till the date of realizatlon along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶22

Summons served on D1 and 2, They were set ex-parte on 19.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Naveen Kolipaka, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through^him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration ls:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant_Bank with future interest and costs. fr.iXtt

¶28

3 oA.NO.332l2026

¶29

In the result, the^present Original Application No.332/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.64,52,665/- with future interest @8.85o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thisthe24thDayofJune,2026).

¶37

71,|'-.Sn^l / t ,.2 '$^'ttu (ru$'GSHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Goli Ramraghava Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sri. Goli Ramraghava Reddy

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna

Canara Bank versus M/s. MD Rafi Boiler Poultry Farm

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nehemiah

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.