Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Kakalwar Rohini

DRT30 Jul 2026OA/524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of an outstanding housing loan amount, dismissing the defendants' contention regarding a pending sale agreement.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs. 66,43,363.79 with interest; enforcement of mortgage; issuance of Recovery Certificate; costs.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Kakalwar Rohini — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No : 524 OF ZO25

¶4

UNION BANK OF INDIA, Krishna Nagar, Telangana Represented by its Principal Officer and Authorised Officer

¶5

......Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Kakalwar Rohini, W/o. Mr. Kakalwar Suresh, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,

¶8

Mr. Kakalwar Suresh, S/o Late K. Ram Kishan, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,

¶9

Both are R/o Flat No.G-2, Ground Floor, ''SHREYA JUBILEE HEIGHTS", PIot No.473-M-III, Sy. No.120 (Old.No.403/1), Shaikpet Viilage AND Sy. No., L02/L of Hakeempet Village, Jubilee Hills, Road No.B7, Hyderabid

¶10

... Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri. K. V. L. Narasimha Rao Counsel for Defendant No. 1 & 2 : M/s. G. Shashidhar Reddy

¶12

:: ORDER::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.66,43,363.79 ps from the Defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally with future interest @ 10.55o/o p.a. with monthly rests form the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs, and in default, sale of oA mortgaged property. ,,;fu.n *

¶14

OA No'^52412025

¶15

2of5

¶16

2,TheavermentsoftheApplicantBank,asstatedintheoA,inbrief, are that^{Defendant No.1 had availed a housing loan of Rs' 50 Lakhs in the} year 2OL7 ,^{which was secured by creation of a mortgageover the s'A'} schedure^{property.It is contended that the defendantscommitted defaults} inrepayment,resultingintheloanaccountbeingclassifiedaSaNPA. Despite^{repeated demands, the defendants allegedly failed to regularise the} loanaccountordischargetheoutstandingdues.Consequently,the applicant^{was constrained to approachthis Tribunalby filing the presentoA} seekingrecoveryofitsduesthroughenforcementofthemortgaged proPertY.

¶17

Defendants^{filed a written statement contesting the maintainabilityof} the oA^{both on facts and in raw, seeking its dismissar at the threshold'The} defendants,^{in their written statement, admit having availed the housing} roan but^{disputetheir fiabirity to pay the amount craimed by the applicant'} The defendants^{assert that they had enteredinto an Agreement of sale} dated^{22,07.20Lgwith Smt. Anusha Esha Uppalapati in respect of the} mortgagedproperty,pursuanttowhichSmt.AnushaEshaUppalapati allegedly^{made payments directlyto the applicant Bank towards the loan} account^{and, by notice dated 26.06'2024, undertook to dischargethe entire} outstanding^{roan riabitity. It is further contended that, despitethe said} arrangement,^{the applicant declaredthe loan account as a NPA and refused} to accept^{further paymentsfrom the said purchaser' The defendantsalso} disputethecorrectnessofthestatementofaccountonthegroundthatit does not^{reflect the payments allegedly made by Smt' Anusha Esha} Uppalapatiandcontendthattheapplicantdeclinedtheirproposalforan 'l oTS.ItisfurthersubmittedthatSmt.AnushaEshaUppatapatihas institutedo.S.No,49of2o2.T,beforethecompetentCivilCourt, Hyderabad,^{wherein the appl6i-nt-'gank is a party, and the Civil Courthas} sranteo^{an interim order directinsmaintenance of ttttzflQ}ifpectof}

¶18

OA No.524/2025

¶19

3 of 5

¶20

the subject property. on these grounds, the defendants pray for dismissar of the OA.

¶21

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Mr. Mikkilineni Naga Sai Durga Dinesh, Assistant Manager as AW_ 1 and marked 17 documents through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-17.

¶22

Defendants right of adducing evidence was forfeited after affording sufficient opportunities vide docket order dated 22.04.2026.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank. The right of the Defendants to advance oral arguments was forfeited by order dated 13.07.2026, despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded. perused the material placed on record.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the applicant places reliance upon Exs.A-l to Exs.A-17 marked through applicant evidence (AW-1) as proof of claim of the bank and submitted that the applicant bank is entifled for recovery of the outstanding amount together with future interest and costs and invoking the mortgage deed.

¶25

B. The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim agai nst the Defenda nts?

¶27

As stated supra, except for making general denials in the Written Statement and disputing the applicant Bank's claim, the defendants have not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate their defence or the contentions raised therein. The Defendants also did choose to crossfu,>*

¶28

OA No.52412025

¶29

4of5

¶30

examine^{AW-1 so as to discreditthe testimony of the witnessor challenge} the^{genuinenessand correctnessof Exs'A-l to A-17 relied upon by the} Applicant^{Bank. It is well settled that mere pleadingsor bald assertions'} unsupported^{by evidence affidavit, cannotbe acceptedas proof of the facts} pleaded.onthecontrary,theApplicantBankhasplacedonrecordboth orar and^{documentary evidencein support of its craim. The testimonyof} AW-l, coupled^{with the documentary evidence marked as Exs'A-l to A-t7 '} has remained^{uncontroverted and unrebutted' Accordingly' this Tribunal is} satisfied that^{the AppticantBank has successfuily estabrishedits claim.} Hence, Defendant^{Nos.1 & 2 are herd jointryand severalry riabre to pay the} o.A.claimtotheApplicantBanktogetherwithfutureinterestandcosts,in accordance^{with law.}

¶31

In the^{result, the present originalApptication No' 52412025 is allowed} as under:^-

¶32

(i) The Defendant^{No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severallyliable to} pay to the Appticant^{Bank a sum of Rs' 66'43'363'79ps} with future^{interest rate @ 10'55o/op'a' simple from the} dateofapplicationtillthedateofrealization;

¶33

(ii) the OA claim^{is secured by way of mortgage of property} as described^{in Schedule annexedto the oA and applicant} bankisentitledtoproceedagainsttheSamefor realisation of^dues;

¶34

(iii) the aPPlicant is entitled to^{proceedagainstthe person} of the defendants^{for reqlization of its}

¶35

and ProPerties dues; and ffis,$

¶36

OA No.5Z4/2025

¶37

5 of 5

¶38

(iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs;

¶39

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

¶40

L2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30'h day of July, 2026)

¶43

6AW..t\rl\

¶44

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Kakalwar Rohini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs. Kakalwar Rohini

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

Marla Babu versus Can Fin Homes Limited

Smt Ramya Raghupathi versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Marineni Purushotam

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Anucon Engineering Projects Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sri Paadha Dairy Products

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Ayyappa Bricks.