Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sri.Bhashapaka Harsha Vardhini

DRT12 Jan 2026OA/544/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Deben Recovery Tribunal allowed the Oppertition filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs.31,90,933.55 plus future interest from Defendants who failed to comply with Term Loan conditions. The Bank executed a Hypothecation Agreement, Deed of Guarantee, and Equitable Mortgage, thereafter issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Being absent, defendants were heard ex-

What did the court decide?

Order Allowed with costs; Defendants defined jointly and several liability to pay the claimed sum with future interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Sri.Bhashapaka Harsha Vardhini — Insurance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPTCHAND, PREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No.544OF2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Narkatpally Nagar Branch, Hyderabad , Telangana.

¶6

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS 1. Sri Bhashapaka Harsha Vardhini, D/o. Bashapaka Hari Krishna, Aged about 26 years, Oc : Business H.No. 5-11-48, Sri Venkateswara Apartments, Shanthi Nagar, Nalgonda Post and District, Telangana - 508 001.

¶9

¶10

Flat No. 204, H.No. 5-11 Sri Venkateswara Shanthi Nagar, Nalgonda Post and Telangana - 508 001 12 JAil 2026 Defendants

¶11

(oA. No. s44l202s)

¶12

Counsel for the parties :

¶13

For The Applicant Sangeeta Jaiswal For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on o9.o1.2026 Pronounced on 12.01.2026 Upload in website on 12.01.2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,90,933.S5 Ps. (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Three and Paise Fifty Five Only) with future interest @13.06%^{p.a with monthly rests from 30.'10.2025 (inctusive} of 2% penal interest) till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedules Property A and B to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendants availed Term Loan facility of Rs.35,00,000/with iOteiest @1QBQ%o,p.a with monthty rests atong with penat -;: . '. inteigf@zZ" o*p"VlUfqr,q.6 years in 12 Hatf^yearty instailments of' 8S.2,91,666.67 andddf,ecuted Hypothecation Agreement : 11^.- 11 :tiifi)g :ii '''^' ,^t,i! . , ,l''

¶17

a,:'-'

¶18

,'....-,,

¶19

(oA. No. s44l202s)

¶20

dated 14.1 1.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No.2 stood as Guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 14.11.2022 in favor of the Appticant Bank. The Defendants created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule B to the OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Tifle Deeds bearing document no. 1702912022 in favor of the Applicant Bank and Defendants deposited Original tifle deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank . After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 12.02.2025 and issued Demand notice dated 13.02.2025 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 0g.01.2026.

¶22

Sri. Nagireddi Durga, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21 .

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

(oA. No. s44l202sl

¶27

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. In view of the above, I hord that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶28

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

¶29

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3i,90,933.s5 ps. (Rupees Thirty one Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Three and Paise Fifty Five Only) with future interest @13.06%^{p.a from 30.10.2025} till the date of realization

¶30

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties AS mentioned in the schedules of^property A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

1 Z Jril 2[?6

(oA. No. s44/2o2sl

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

¶36

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

¶37

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of Jan, 2026)

¶40

sd/(c. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

fi"twry
,#;m,

¶42

Union Bank of India v. Sri.Bhashapaka Harsha Vardhini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sri.Bhashapaka Harsha Vardhini

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

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Nakshtra Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mallepogu Nadipi Sunkanna

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dasari Suresh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arca Diagnostics

Canara Bank versus M/S.Jyothi Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Venkateshwara Textiles