Allowed

Bank of India v. Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah

DRT7 Jan 2026OA/419/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Originating Application filed by Bank of India for recovery of an outstanding home loan amount and penal interest from the defendant borrowers and guarantor, relying on SARFAESI Act provisions. The court declared the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with future interest and authorized the sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.61,74,529.95 plus future interest at 9.10% p.a. from the date of OA. Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 4',|.9 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of lndia, Sultan Bazar Branch, D.No.4-3-169, 539 & 540, Ground Floor, Hanuman Tekdi, Sultan Bazar,

¶6

Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶7

Represented by its Constituted Attorney

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah,

¶11

S/o. Mahanandi,

¶12

Aged 53 years, Occ : Business, Sex Male, R/o. H.No,7-1-304,

¶13

Huts Civil supplies,

¶14

Dasaram Basthi, B.K. Guda, Balkampet, S.R. Nagar,

Hyderabad - 500 038.

15 40'1, A.P.

(OA. No. a191202s)

Also at -

H.No.7-1-2771103, Plot No. 232lC, B.K Guda, Balkampet S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038,

¶20

Sri. Gujjala Ramanjeneyulu, S/o. Pullaiah,

¶21

Aged 30 years, Occ : Business, Sex Male, R/o. H.No,7-1-304, Huts Civil supplies, Dasaram Basthi, B.K. Guda, Balkampet, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038.

¶22

Also at -

¶23

D.No.711240, Maruthi Nagar, Gooty, Ananthapur District - 515 401 , A.p.

¶24

Also at -

¶25

H.No. 7-1-2771103, Plot No. 232lC, B.K Guda, Balkampet S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038

¶26

Defendants

¶27

(oA. No. 4191202s)

¶28

Counsel for the parties :

¶29

For The Applicant Sri. D. Brahma Reddy For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 05.01.2026 Pronounced on 07.01.2026 Upload in website on o't- ol^.2126

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.61,74,529.9S ps. (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Ninety Five Only) with future interest @^{9.10 % p.a with monthly} rests^plus 2%o penal interest from the date of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶32

¶33

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 availed Home Loan of Rs.70,00,000/_ repayable in 260 equated monthly installments of Rs.60,137l_ with interest @ 8.75% p.a with monthly rests and executed Agreemeht for Home Loan daled 12.02.201g in favor of the '0 as a Guarantor and tu

¶34

(oA. No. 419/202s)

¶35

executed Deed of Guarantee dated 12.02.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 1 create equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property to OA and execuited Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 06.03.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank and deposited title deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. After avalling the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 03.06.2025 and issued Demand notice dated 12.06.2025 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and notice through counsel dated 12.09.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶36

¶37

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 05.01.2026.

¶38

Sri. N. Jogi Reddy, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 lo A.22.

¶39

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶40

consideration is whether the Applicant claim made in the OA against the

\h,.-eY

(oA. No. 419/202s)

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.22. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶46

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

¶47

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.61,74,52g.95 ps. (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Eight and paise Ninety Five Only) with future interest @ 9.10^o/o p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization

¶48

¶49

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of the Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

is also entitled to proceed against the of defendants No. 1 and 2 towards

¶51

(OA. No. 4191202s)

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7h day ofJan, 2026)

¶57

sd/-
0/,
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Wrtffi
Aest Reg'strar
D,Qir. H-':1i:ir 1'

Bank of India v. Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah

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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Podila Ramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

State Bank of India versus Mr. Putta Sudhakar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Our Basket

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Raja Rajeshwara Tent House

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri. Venkateshwara Traders