Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s. Varalakshmamma Powerlooms.

DRT6 Feb 2026OA/347/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a debtor recovery application filed by City Union Bank Ltd. against multiple respondents for a total sum of Rs. 16,75,48,524.78 along with interest and costs, holding them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 16,75,48,524.78 with 10% p.a. simple interest; OA secured by mortgage properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Varalakshmamma Powerlooms. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRiBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPL]CAT]ON No: 347 0F 2025

¶5

City Union Bank Ltd., Hindu pur Branch.

¶6

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Varalakshmamma Powerlooms., Rep by its Proprietor, S.No.31 - 1 D.No.1-70-2, Opp Sai Nagar Somandepalli, Ananthapur District Andhra Pradesh - 515122.

¶10

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Silk House Rep by its Proprietor, 1-70-2 Bangalore Road, Opp Sai Nagar Somandepalli, Ananthapur District Andhra Pradesh - 575722.

¶11

Mrs. D. Varalakshmamma W/o. D. Venkatesulu, Aged f4ajor D.No.1-633, Dhanalakshmi Road Somandepalle, Anantapur Andhra Pradesh - 5L5LZ2.

¶12

Mr. D. Venkatesulu, S/o. Late D. Juturappa, Aged Major D.No.1-633, Dhanalakshmi Road Somandepalle, Anantapur Andhra Pradesh - 575722.

¶13

Mr. D. Ashok Kumar S/o. D. Venkatesulu, Aged l4ajor D.No.1-633, Dhanalakshmi Road Somandepalle, Anantapur

¶14

Andhra Pradesh - 515722-l'-/firy,*

¶15

oA.NO,347/2025

¶16

Mr. D. Maruthi Kumar S/o. D. Venkatesulu, Aged Major D. No. 1-633, Dhanalakshmi Road Somandepalle, Anantapur Andhra Pradesh - 515722.

¶17

... Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant

¶19

: Ms. Ch. Laxmi Chaya

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: g-LD-L& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.16,75,48,524.78ps i.e., a sum of Rs.7,72,37,289.37ps towards OLCC Limit Alc. No. 512020010028582 with future interest @12.350/0 p.a., a sum of Rs.2,03,38,812.79ps towards OLCC A/c.No.512020010028583 with future interest @12.45o/o p.a., a sum of Rs.6,48,47,640.74ps towards OSL Term Limit A/c. No.501812080076902 with future interest @11.450lo p.a. and a sum of Rs.6,51,36,781.88ps towards OSL Term Limit A/c. No.501812080076903 with future interest @11.650/0 p.a. from the defendants jointly and severally with monthly rests plus 2olo penal interest from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶24

wS not filed by D1 to 6 though posted as a last chance hence, their right of filing WS was forfeited and were set ex-parte on 31.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶25

The Applicant Bank examined S Nagababu, Manager, as AW-1

¶26

and marked 96 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.96.

¶27

/(fu^.,s'- -05'\ !

¶28

oa.No.347l2025

¶29

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

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents vlz., Exs. A.1 to 4.96 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.

¶33

In the result, the^present Original Application No.34712025 is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.16,75,48,524.78ps 1.e., the defendants 1, 3 to 6 are^jointly and severally llable to pay a sum of Rs.7,72,31,289.37^ps towards OLCC Limit A/c. No. s12020010028582 & Rs.6,48,47,640.74ps towards OSL Term Limit A/c. No. 501812080076902 and the defendants 2,3 to 6 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay a sum of Rs.2,03,38,812.79ps towards OLCC /flW*u

oA.NO.347l202s

A/c.No.512020010028583 &

¶39

Rs.6,51,36,781.88ps towards OSL Term Limit A/c.No.501812080076903; with future interest @10o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶43

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

¶44

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶45

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 this the 06th Day of February, 2026).

¶46

PRESIDING OFFICER

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s. Varalakshmamma Powerlooms.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s. Varalakshmamma Powerlooms.

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

M/S. Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Menakshi Con.

Chittajallu Sudha versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Rsl Groups

Icici Bank Limited versus Mohammed Shanawaz

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Proavin Health Care.

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Syam Ganga Home Appliances