Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Enterprises.

DRT2 Sept 2026OA/591/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte original application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Union Bank of India's claim for the recovery of dues and charges of Rs.36.12 lakhs with interest against the defendants. The Tribunal held the defendants jointly and severally liable and directed the issue of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.36,12,956.02 plus interest and costs. Recovery certificate issued. Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties of defendants.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Mahalakshmi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O2ND DAY OF SEPTEMEER, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 591 OF 2026

¶4

Union Bank of India., Mallampet Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Slgnatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Mahalakshmi Enterprises., Rep by its Prop. Sri Sirvi Babulal shop No. 1-106, Mallampet village Quthbullapur^{Mandal,Medchal} Malkajgiri District, Telangana - 500090.

¶8

Sri. Sirvi Babulal, S/o. Sirvi Mangaram Aged about 36 Years, R/o.H.No.1-2lA Block No. 7,2,3,4 & 5, Maltampet Vi age Quthbullapur^{14andal,MedchalMalkajgiri} District, Telangana - 500090.

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P. Naga Durga Prasad

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.36,12,956.02ps from the defendants jolntly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. with monthly rests from 05.05.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and in defautt for sate of hypoth ecated asse5eWt.*

¶15

oa.No.591/2026

¶16

¶17

Summons served on D1 and 2 through^{paper publication.} They were set ex-parte on 01.09.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined M Praveen Kumar Naik, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets ?

¶22

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 jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.591/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.36,12,956.02ps with future . interest 6w"*

¶25

oA.NO.s91l2026

¶26

¶27

@9.25%^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶29

lii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the^partles concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, sitned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02^d Day ofseptember, 2026).

¶34

/flwtt--.,v:-\ //,/' 60"'.' ((AI{ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

OA.No.591/2026

¶36

02.O9.2026 Orders^{Pronounced, vide separate sheets.}

¶37

In the result OA.No.591/2026 is allowed^{with costs'Issue} Recovery Certiflcate accordin^gly.

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Enterprises.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Enterprises.

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

Hdfc Bank versus Narayana Reddy

Hdfc Bank versus Naskon Associates

Union Bank of India versus Maneesha Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Manikanta Agencies

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri Maheeja Constructions

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Sivarama Krishna Matta