Allowed

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

DRT7 Jan 2026OA/524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India against the defendant firm and the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor. The court held the bank entitled to recover the outstanding principal, future interest, and costs, permitting proceedings against both the original property encumbrances and the personal assets of the heirs.

What did the court decide?

The OA was allowed; Defendants directed to pay Rs. 43,54,566.00 plus future interest; Bank entitled to realize debt from hypothecated property and personal assets of Defendants 2-6.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Raja Rajeshwara Tent House — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI cUMMAD| coplcHAND, PREStDtNG OFFICER

¶4

OA. No. 524OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of lndia, Koti Reddy Circle Branch, Hyderabad.

¶7

Represented by its Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Raja Rajeshwara Tent House, Rep by its Proprietor, Sri Petem Venugopal

¶11

S/o. Late Rajendra Rao.

¶12

R/o. H.No. 16-6-144,

¶13

Perikawada Khila,

¶14

Warangal- 506 002.

¶15

Ms. Koduri Madhavi,

¶16

Wo. K. Bhasker,

¶17

D/o. Late Pettem Rajendar

¶18

Age Major, Occ: Business,

¶19

R/o. H.No. 16-6-144,

¶20

Perikawada Khila,

¶21

Warangal- 506 002.

¶22

:0 l{
i- rf}
\i4 \so(

¶23

(oA. No. s2al202s)

¶24

Smt. Pettem Kusuma, Wo. Late Pettem Rajendar, Age Major, Occ: Not Known, R/o. H.No. 16-6-144, Perikawada Khila, Warangal - 506 002.

¶25

Sri Pettem Venugopal, Wo. Late Pettem Rajendar, Age Major, Occ : Not Known, R/o. H.No. 16-6-144, Perikawada Khila, Warangal- 506 002. Legal Heir of Late Petam Rajender Rao.

¶26

Ms. Koduri Madhavi, Wo. K Bhasker, D/o. Late Pettem Rajendar Age Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 16-6-144, Perikawada Khila, Warangal - 506 002.

¶27

Legal Heir of Late Petam Rajender Rao.

¶28

Smt. Pettem Kusuma

¶29

Wo. Late Pettem Rajendar,

¶30

Age Major, Occ: Not Known,

¶31

R/o. H.No. 16-6-144, Perikawada Warangal - Legal Heir of Late Rajender Rao l

¶32

Defendants

¶33

(oA. No. s24l202s)

¶34

Counsel for the parties :

¶35

For The Appticant Sangeeta Jaiswal For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 02.01.2026 Pronounced on 07.01.2026 Upload in website on D-l^.D),2o2-b

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.43,54,566.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with future interest@ 13.50% p.a with monthty rests from 23.10.2025 tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedules of properties A and B to OA.

¶38

¶39

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant No. 2 availed Cash Credit Loan facility of Rs.6,00,000t on 23.10.2010 and the said loan facitity was time to time and tast renewed on 01.01.2023 for 'vii64.-tolr;n with interest @ 12.3Ovo p.a with monthly rests Hypothecation Agreement of Goods and debts

¶40

(OA. No. s24l202s)

¶41

dated 06.02.2023 in favor of the Appticant Bank. The Defendants No. 2, 3 and Late Petam Rajender Rao stood as a Guarantor and executed Letter of Guarantee dated 06.02.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Late Rajendar Rao created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property B to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Tifle Deeds dated 30.04.2010 in favor of the Applicant Bank and deposited the tifle deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. After Availing the loan it is come to the knowledge of the Applicant Bank that Sri pettem Rajendar Rao expired and Defendants No. 4, S and 6 are the legal heirs of the Late Rajendar Rao. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 28.12.2023 and issued Legat notice dated 18.08.2025 to the defendants. The applicant Bank also initiated SARFAESI proceedings and issued various notices to the Defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶42

¶43

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 02.01 .2026.

¶44

Sri. Naresh Utukuri, Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21.

¶45

^' ,,:i 5. I^{lteard itff Ld. Gdtrnsetfor the Appticant Bank.} ^^{,t ,.} ,: .'i 4 ,^"i-',,.,, ' , ,: :', ' ,t''"' ' ::-:. .. ' . r;,..'r

¶46

(oA. No. s24/202s)

¶47

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶48

¶49

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.21. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA agalnst the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶50

¶51

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

¶52

The Defendants No. 1 to 6 are joinfly and severaily Iiable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.43,54,566.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and sixty six only) with future interest @ 13.s0% p.a from 23.10.2025 till the date of realization.

¶53

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property as mentioned in '.tthe Schedules of the Property A and B to the OA towards rea{ization of the debt due.

¶54

I I

¶55

(oA. No. s24/202s)

¶56

The Applicant Bank is arso entitted to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 to 6 and properties of Defendant No. 1 towards rearization of the debt due. However the Applicant Bank is entifled onry to the extent of estate devotved upon them from the deceased Late Rajendra Rao.

¶57

That Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶58

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶59

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶60

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶61

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

¶62

#,,
{/ " r* frl

¶63

sd/,-.!?;,i,?l?Til=?

¶64

iv.t*"
Assf' F6-?ru:I'
llPT'! il 'r':'-

¶65

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Canara Bank versus Podila Ramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

State Bank of India versus Mr. Putta Sudhakar

Bank of India versus Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah

State Bank of India versus M/S. Our Basket

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri. Venkateshwara Traders