Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Saritha Industries

DRT5 Feb 2026OA/546/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No. 546 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank’s application for recovery of approximately Rs. 1.01 crore with interest against eight respondents, including a proprietorship firm and legal heirs, holding the bank established its claim under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability ordered for Rs. 1,01,85,718.95 plus interest; sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties and issue of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saritha Industries — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE Osth DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No.546 OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Narkatapally Branch, Nalgonda District

¶6

Represented by its Authorized Person

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Saritha lndustries,

¶10

Rep. by its Proprietor,

¶11

Smt. Gantekampu Saritha,

¶12

Wo. Sri. G. Govinda Raju,

¶13

Age about 39 years, Occ. Business,

¶14

H.No. 5-1 1-28812,Shanthi Nagar,

¶15

Near Nalgonda School,

¶16

Nalgonda Post and District, Telangana State - 508 001,

¶17

Mr. Bashapaka Hari Krishna, S/o. Mr. Bashapaka, Venkaiah, Age about 51 years, Occ. Business, H.No. 5-11-48,

¶18

Sri Ventateswara Apartments, Shanthi Nagar, Nalgonda Post and District, Telangana State - 508 001

¶19

tr%
g 05r$7pi
%'-**&u

¶20

(oA. No. s46l2025)

¶21

Sri. Gantekampu Dharma Dixam @ Bixam, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Legal Heir of Late Gantekampu Laxmamma, Age about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 5-7-25011, Raj Nagar, Nalgonda Town.

¶22

Sri Gantekampu Srinivasu S/o. Late Anjaiah,

¶23

Legal Heir of Late Gantekampu Laxmamma, Age about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 5-7-25012, RajNagar, Nalgonda Town.

¶24

Sri Gantekampu Govindaraju S/o. Late Anjaiah,

¶25

Legal Heir of Late Gantekampu Laxmamma, Age about 44years, Occ. Business,

¶26

R/o. H.No. 5-7-250, Raj Nagar, Nalgonda Town.

¶27

Sri Gantekampu Saidulu S/o. Late Anjaiah,

¶28

Legal Heir of Late Gantekampu Laxmamma, Age about 42years, Occ. Business,

¶29

R/o. H.No. 5-7-250,

¶30

Raj Nagar, Nalgonda Town.

¶31

Smt. Kathula Yadamma,

¶32

Wo. Laxmaiah,

¶33

Legal Heir of Late Gantekampu Laxmamma, Age about 55 years, Occ. Household,

¶34

o s r:B 2.W

¶35

(OA. No. s46l202s)

¶36

H.No.5-10-289, Manyamchelka, Nalgonda Town,

¶37

Smt. Bhashapaka Jyothi, Wo Sri. Hari Krishna D/o. Late Anjaiah, Legal Heir of Late Gantekampu Laxmamma, Age about46 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 5-11-48, Shanthi Nagar, Nalgonda Town. Defendants

¶38

Counsel for the^parties: For The Applicant Sangeeta Jaiswal For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on 30.01.2026 Pronounced on 05.02.2026 Upload in website on 05.02.2026

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,01,85,718.95 Ps.^(Rupees One Grores One Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand^Seven Hundred Eighteen and Paise Ninety Five Only)^{i.e a sum of} -

¶41

5 r!8 20?[

¶42

(OA. No. s46l2025)

¶43

(i) Rs. 97,01,259.95 Ps. together with future interest @13.10% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @2o/o p.a lrom 12.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶44

(ii) Rs. 4,84,459.00 Ps. together with future interest @9.50% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @2o/o p.a trom 12.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶45

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedule of Properties A to D to OA.

¶46

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship Firm availed Term loan of Rs.90.00 Lakhs repayable in 84 monthly installments of Rs.1,06,000/- p.m with interest @10.40o/o p.a with monthly rests and Agreement for Term loan dated 30.09.2019 and Common Deed of Hypothecation of movables/assets/ debts dated 3.09.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed Guarantee agreement dated 30.09.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule properties B to D to OA and executed Memorandum of of Title Deeds Doc No. 19468/2019 and deposited title in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants is a availed ,- loan under UGECL scheme of Rs.18.00 Lakhs 1n?F^yr ,Ji-,{ ^^S \h,,""*W

¶47

(oA. No. s46l202s)

¶48

repayable in 36 equated monthly installments with interest @7.50o/o^p.a with monthly rests and Term loan Agreement dated 23.12.2020 and in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 23.12.2026 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 21 .02.2024 and issued Notice dated 22.02.2024 under section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 and Legat Notice dated 17.09.2025 to the defendants. After availing the loan Gantekampu Anjaiah who is the owner/guarantor of D-schedule propefi died and Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 are the legal Heirs of the Late Gantekampu Anjaiah. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶49

¶50

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 09.01.2026 and 30.01.2026.

¶51

Sri. Nagireddi Gurga Prasad, Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW..l and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.23.

¶52

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶53

(oA. No. s46l2025)

¶54

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

¶55

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 A.23. ln view of the above, I hold 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.

¶56

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

¶57

The Defendants No. 1 to 8 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,01,85,718.95 Ps. (Rupees One Crores One Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen and Paise Ninety Five Only) i.e a sum of -

¶58

(i) Rs. 97,01,259.95 Ps. together with future interest @10.10% p.a from 12.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶59

(ii) Rs. 4,84,459.00 Ps. together with future interest @7.50o/o p.a till the date of realization. ;td^--'-S &d$ j osFrB2026 j 6 tfu**#

¶60

(oA. No. s46l202s)

¶61

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties as mentioned in the Schedule of properties A to D to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶62

'10. The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants No. 2 to g and

¶63

properties of Defendant no. 1 firm towards rearization of the debt due. However the Applicant Bank is entifled only to the extent of estate devorved upon Defendants No. 3 to g from the deceased Late Gantekampu Anjaiah who is the owner/ guarantor of Schedule D Property to OA.

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶67

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶68

(Dictatedlo the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05th day of Feb, 2026)

¶69

sd/-
(c. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Yda;---"--/.yb
'i",6x.:!
41.7 !"- :"'. i L''-'q'

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Saritha Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Saritha Industries

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

Karthik Singh Deepawale versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Mrs Urmila Goel versus Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Sri Kolluri Adithya Sai

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited

Navneeta Agarwal versus State Bank of India

Smt Siddula Durga versus Shriram Finance Limited