Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Alugula Nageswara Rao

DRT10 Mar 2026OA/70/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed OA No.70 of 2026 filed by Union Bank of India against Mr. Alugula Nageswara Rao. The Tribunal held the bank established its claim through proper evidence and awarded a lump sum of Rs.57.11 lakhs with future interest, allowing execution against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondent liable to pay Rs.57,11,327 with 8.85% p.a. future interest; execution allowed against mortgaged and personal properties; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Alugula Nageswara Rao — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERV TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE lOrH DAy OF MARCH,20.26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.7O of 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Branch at 4-1-10, 1st floor, Opp Wesley church, Tilak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad - 500 001. Represented by its Branch head

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Alugula Nageswara Rao, S/o Sri Suraiah, aged 60 years, Occ: private employee, R/o 8-7-17L/58, plot no.10, 2"d floor, Laxminarayana colony, Maitrivan Opp Tirumala Sankalp Arcade, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011 TS.

¶10

And also at:

¶11

C/o M/s. ASR Enterprises, H.No. L-L-37,1-1-38/3 16, flat no.316, Diamond towers, Beside Belson Taj Hotel, Secunderabad, TS - 500 003.

¶12

And also at:

¶13

H.No. L-5-L3/L(new) H.No.5-6t/5 (old), Plot no.46, Prashanthnagar colony, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri dist, Hyderabad- 10.

¶14

And also at:

¶15

Glat no.G-1, plot no.64, Anugruha homes Jai Bharathi nagar, Nizampet road Near Rishi Degree college, Ranga

¶16

_ il'
. . J'
i{u ?0 mn mtr
iJ. j
.: .rl.i'dt 'i
.,s I
I
\l$,;

¶17

(oA.No.7012026)

¶18

Defendant

¶19

Reddy district, Hyderabad - 500 090.

¶20

And also at:

¶21

H.No.3-44/2, Main road, Mattagunta village, Mattagunta Post, Kalidindi mandal, Krishan District, AP - 521 344.

¶22

Counselfor theParties:
FortheApplicant	SriMVS Prasad
FortheDefendant	Expade
Reserved on	0s.03.2026
Pronouncedon	10.03.2026
Uploaded inwebsiteon	10.03,2026

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendantfor recovery} of a total sum of Rs.57,11,327l-^(Rupees Fifty Seven^Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Seven only)^with future interest @ 8.85o/o^p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged^property as^mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application,^{the Applicant Bankstates that} defendpit:,gvEite-O:no,u9L4fuoan of Rs.57.OO lakhs for^{purchase of} '. r.+^\1

¶26

^.r:'4",^{-. '*}

¶27

resigi*ial hou$ and':$bLuted housing loan agreement^dated nt'deposited the title deeds vide doc.

¶28

(oA.No.70l2026)

¶29

No.l9l7/2023 dated 03.04.2023 registered in SRO Vallabhnagar and created equitable mortgage of schedule property. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.04.2024 and demand notice was issued on 03.05.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 05.03.2026.

¶31

Sri Vikas Chand Pandey, Senior Manager of the Applicant^Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents,^which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶32

Heard the Ld, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The^point that arise for consideration^{is whetherthe Applicant Bank is} entitled for the claim made in the OA against the^{Defendantas prayed} for?

¶34

Defendantwas set exparte. To substantiate the case of^theApplicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant^Bank was^examined and^he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.12.^{In view of the above,} I hold that nt Bank has established their claim made in the OA d hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to OA with future interest and costs.

¶35

(oA.No.7012026)

¶36

B. In the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶37

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.57,1L,327/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Seven only) with future interest @ 8.85o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶38

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the schedule mentioned mortgaged property of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶41

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on
,6
sdl_
/h
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
i,l 1o Ir CIll znffi*'j!ar li
; :i'l . _..) , ,.: ( ii:.
.n-Q^:lri
.g .t ' .r{
.: ,- ..r::?f,//i
." .'',-t ,'."'-/
t-;;rt'r:'ii'
.-'

Union Bank of India v. Alugula Nageswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Alugula Nageswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fine Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. a K Metal Mart

Canara Bank versus M/S. Mahender Powerlooms Industry

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Aleti Aruna

State Bank of India versus Gootty Chandra Sekhar

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sri. K. Venkataiah Goud