Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kakalwar Suresh

DRT23 Jan 2026OA/585/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 93,78,001/- from the defendants. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal, future interest, and costs, and confirmed the bank's right to proceed against the mortgaged property and defendants' assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 93,78,001/-, future interest, and costs. Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants' assets. Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kakalwar Suresh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF ]ANUARY, 2026 PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 585 OF 2O2S Union Bank of India., Krishna Nagar Branch at Hyderabad Dist Telangana State. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. .....Applicant.

¶3

Versus 1. Mr. Kakalwar Suresh, S/o. Late K. Ram Kishan, Aged about 45^years, Occ: Business 2. Mrs.Kakalwar Rohini, Wo.Mr. Kakalwar Suresh, Aged about 43 Years, Occ: Business Both are R/o. Flat No.201 A, 2nd Floor Shreya Homes Jubilee Hills Co Op Housi,ng Building Society Ltd, Road No.87 lubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶4

... Defendants Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. K V L Narasimha Rao Defendants : Ex-parte

¶5

:: ORDER ::

¶6

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.93,78,001/- from the defendants jointly and geyerally.with. future interest @10.55% p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedute property. /fu-x

¶7

oA:NO.s8s/202s

¶8

¶9

summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 25.09.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶10

The Applicant Bank examined M. Naga sai Durga Dinesh, chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶11

Heard the Ld. counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶12

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶13

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶14

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the oA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶15

In the result, the present original Application No.5g5/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶16

i) The Defendants are joinily and severally Rs. e3, 78,ool / - *,rn rrrbffiit .^{@8. 55o/o}

¶17

oA.NO.s8s/202s

¶18

¶19

the date of realization; it) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt; iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 9. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 10. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the'23'd Day of January, 2026).

¶20

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kakalwar Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kakalwar Suresh

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

Chikatla Vishnumurthy versus Union Bank of India

Smt B Manogna versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Indian Bank versus M/s. Agarwal Trading Co.

Ramakanth Inani versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Sri. G. Satyanarayana

Indian Bank versus M/s. Camon Frames.