Allowed

M/S. Union Bank of India v. Sri M. Anil Kumar

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/513/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by a bank against two individual defendants for recovery of an overdue loan amount. The defendants failed to appear with evidence or arguments forfeiting their rights, leading to the judgment in favor of the bank for principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 58,10,346.26 plus future interest and costs. Bank entitled to realize dues from mortgaged properties.

M/S. Union Bank of India versus Sri M. Anil Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 513 OF 2025

¶5

IVI/S UNION BANK OF INDIA Having its Head Office at Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nirman Point Bombay 400021 and Branch at and having Various branches one among it is Branch at Ankula Yellareddy Comp Diamond Point Hotel Sikh Village Secunderabad- 500019 Rep. by its authorized person (Senior Manager)

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sri M. Anil Kumar S/o Sri Late lvl. Srinlvas Age; about 55yrs Occ; Business H. No.7- 1- 170, Maruthi Veedhi Secundera bad 500003

¶9

Smt M. Rupika

¶10

Wo^{Sri M. Anii Kumar}

¶11

Age: Major, H. No.7- 1- 170, Maruthi Veedhi

¶12

Secunderabad 500003

¶13

... Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. Sangeetha laiswal Counsel for the Defendants : lYr. Ramesh Anand lY. G. W!b$

¶15

oa.No.s13/2025

¶16

:: q-LLL& ::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 58,10,346.26 ps towards loan account no. 120531100000399 from the defendants 1 & 2 with future interest @13.80o/o^p.a. from^18.03.2025 till the date of^{realizatlon along} with costs, and ln default, sale of oA mortgaged^propertles.

¶18

The averments of applicant bank as^per the OA, briefly, are that the Defendants had avalled a Overdraft Loan facility sanctioned by the Applicant Bank. After availing the said credit facility,^the Defendants committed defaults in repayment of the^loan instalments, resulting in the loan account being classified as a NPA on 31.03.2019. Desplte issuance of a demand notlce dated 20.05.2025 calling upon the Defendants to clear the outstanding dues, the Defendants failed to regularize the account. Consequently, the Applicant Bank was constralned to institute the present O.A. for recovery of its dues.

¶19

Though the Defendants entered appearance through their

¶20

learned counsel, Mr. Ramesh Anand M. G., they failed to file their written statement despite sufficient opportunities being granted by this Tribunal. Consequently, the Defendants' right to file the written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 08. 12.2025.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Ms. V. Divya Teja, Senior Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 16 documents through him as Ex.A.1to Ex.A.16.

¶22

futtl

¶23

oA.NO.513/202s

¶24

The Defendants, despite being granted adequate opportunities, failed to lead evidence in support of their case. Accordingly, their right to adduce evidence stood forfeited vide docket order dated 16.04.2026.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank. The Defendants, despite being granted ample opportunity, failed to advance oral arguments and, accordingly, their right stood forfelted vide docket order dated 23.06.2026. Perused the material placed on record.

¶26

According to the learned counsel for the applicant bank, after availing loan facility, the defendants committed default in repayment despite issuance of notice. Hence, applicant bank is entitled to the OA claim considering the documents exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.16 through AW.1 and the recital therein.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶28

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

¶29

As stated supra, though the Defendants entered appearance through their counsel, they neither flled any written statement nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their defense. Further, they did not advance any arguments despite being afforded sufRcient opportunity. Consequently, their right to contest the matter stood forfeited. Under such circumstances, the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.16 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that the ffi,nr

¶30

oA.NO.513/2025

¶31

Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.513/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 58,10,346.26 ps future interest @13.35olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for rea lisation of dues;

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by the ooen court on this the 25th Day of June, 2026). 9{6-9l.utlv KOTHE)

¶40

IDING OFFICER

M/S. Union Bank of India v. Sri M. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Union Bank of India v. Sri M. Anil Kumar

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.

Bank of Baroda versus varikuppala prasad

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

Canara Bank versus M/S.Farmdean Hospitality LLP

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma

Hdfc Bank versus Nadida Ipathi Reddy