Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Star Gym Fitness

DRT11 Feb 2026OA/545/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of loan dues from a gym fitness centre proprietor who raised default as the Plaintiff Bank filed an Original Application for recovery of outstanding amounts with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs.59,50,330.33 with future interest of 7.50% per annum simple from date of application till realization.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Star Gym Fitness — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1lTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 545 OF 2023

¶5

Between :

¶6

Union Bank of India Sri Rama Krishna Puram Branch Kothapet, Hyderabad. Rep by its Branch Manager.

¶7

.......Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

M/s. Star Gym Fitness Rep by its Proprietor Smt. Balavanthapu Sushma Vuday W/o K. Sampathreddy H. No. 8-147,2nd Floor Mythripuram Gayathrinagar X Roads Karmanghat, R.R. Dist.500 079

¶10

Also at: Flat No.71, 7th Floor Jains Raavi Gayathri Heights Beside Tanla Building Opp: Hitex, Madhapur Hyderabad-S0O 081 &

¶11

H. No. 15-142/1 Sahithi Nest Apartment FlatNo.105,P&TColony Near Ramalayam Dilsukh nagar Hyderabad-500036.

¶12

..... Defendant.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P A V Bala Prasad. Counsel for Defendants : MS Law Chambers. r)rxl--' ' '^'"'ir)

oA.545 / 2023

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.59,50,330.33Ps (Rs.6,46,717.68ps towards toan account No.131230100065137 and Rs. S3,03,612.65ps towards loan account No.131230100050039) from the defendant with future interest @10.9540/0 per annum with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶18

The averments of the OA, in brief, are:

¶19

Defendant, an t4SME, availed a credit facility to a tune of Rs.71,00,000/- for setting up Gym and Fitness Centre vide sanction letter dated 09.11.2017. The loan was to be payable in 84 EMIS of Rs.84,525/-. Defendant executed necessary loan documents. Defendant addressed a letter to the Branch Manager of the applicant bank stating that she was unable to pay El4I due to lockdown and would pay a bulk amount by disposing of her property and the remaining balance if any would be paid in rescheduled instalments. As per the representation of the defendant, applicant rescheduled the term loan and the overdue amount was transferred to a newly opened account. Defendant paid some instalments in the 2"d loan account also. However, defendant committed default in repaying the loan amounts. Despite recall notices on 09.17.2022, 09.72.2022, 01.01.2023 and t6.0j2023, defendant failed to regularise the loan accounts constraining the applicant to issue legal notice dated 03.02.2023- Hence the oA.

OY*u

oA.545 / 2023

Defendant filed written statement praying dismissal of OA for the reason of the averments therein being false, frivolous, concocted, illegal, unreasonable and against the settled principles of law and public policy, equity and good conscious. Due to mandatory closure of Gym during Covid.19 Pandemic, defendant suffered financial loss, leading to default in payment of ElvlIs. Applicant bank has not waived the^prescribed instalments as per regulations set forth by the RBI. Applicant bank failed to specify the applicable interest rate and comprehensive calculation memorandum towards the outstanding dues. Applicant bank has not opened or maintained any loan account bearing No.13123010066137. Therefore, deposit of monies in the new loan account is denied.

¶24

In order to prove its claim, the Applicant Bank examined Sowjanya Devarakonda, 14anager, as AW-1 and marked 15 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.15.

¶25

forfeited vide Defendant's right of adducing evidence was docket order dated 11.07.2025.

¶26

Both side counsel reported no oral arguments. Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties and the materlal placed on record.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendant?

¶29

in There ls no dispute in availment of loan and default for

¶30

repayment. Accordins to defendant, rurl,r*,

¶31

¶32

oA.s45 / 2(J23

¶33

reschedulement was partially acted upon by opening a new account, but waiver or further extensions left unattended. Having contended so, defendant has neither placed on record produced any material evidencing of her taking up these unaddressed issues with the applicant bank at any point of time prior to filing the written statement nor produced the relevant regulation of RBI circular entitling her for such waiver. On the other hand, Exhibit A.4 shows that defendant expressed her intention to pay the dues in bulk by resorting to sale of properties and the balance dues if any, by way of regular instalments by reschedultng the loan account. Thus, the contention of non-reschedulement of loan account resulted in default is nothing but an afterthought. Further, it is setUed law that mere bald and vague statements without proper and supporting evidentiary material are of no help. In contrast, applicant bank produced 15 documents vide Exhibits A.1 to A.15 through evidence affldavit of AW.1 in support of its claim. tn spite of such a situation, defendant did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert the evidence affidavit or the exhibits produced through him. Under these circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exhibits A. 1 to A.15 remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. Hence, I hold that defendant ls liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶34

In the result, the present Original Application No.545/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶35

i) Defendant is liable to pay to the appticant bank a sum of Rs.59,SO,33O.33ps ( Rs.6,46,717.68ps towieJds loan account 0V*u

¶36

oA.s4s/2023

¶37

¶38

No.131230100066137, Rs.53,03,612.65Ps towards loan account No.131230100050039) along with interest @7.50o/o per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶39

ii) the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant for realization of its dues; and iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶40

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

¶41

L2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official Web Portal.

¶43

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of Fe brua ry, 2026. )

¶44

kd)"s SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Star Gym Fitness

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Star Gym Fitness

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

Indian Bank versus M/s. Forrit Projects Private Limited.

Indian Bank versus M/s. Mahalakshmi Marketing.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Pennugonda Ravi Chandra

Bank of India versus M/s. Parvathi Wlccs Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Pasupuleti Nagarjuna

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Royal Automotives