Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Boyapati Mahesh

DRT21 Apr 2026OA/760/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Union Bank of India's Original Application for recovery of outstanding loans. The bank found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the principal dues less proceeds from the sale of secured properties, directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,02,36,802.39 less Rs. 1,13,15,540/ realized by sale, with future interest and costs, and directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Boyapati Mahesh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT^HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 215T DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com.,^{L.LB. (Hons.), l'4.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO :} 760 0F 2025

¶4

Union Bank of India., (erstwhile Andhra Bank) Branch Office at SKU Administrative EC Branch, Anantapur - 515003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Boyapati Mahesh, S/o. B.^Mahesh Aged about 38 Years, Occ:^Doctor Male, Add: 3-18, LIC Colony,^Near JNTU College, Anantapur - 515002.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

R/o. H. No.5-144, Ananthasagaram Malyava ntha, AnantaPur - 515661.

¶10

Boyappati Gopal, S/o. B.^AchaPPa Aged about 68 Years, Occ:^Business Male, Add: 3-18, LIC Colony, Near JNTU College, AnantaPur - 515002.

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

R/o. H.No.5-144, Ananthasagara^m Malyavantha, AnantaPur - 515661.

¶13

Boyapatl Annapurna, Wo. B. Gopal Aged Major, Occ: House^{Wife, Female} Add: 3-18, LIC Colony, Near JNTU College, Anantapur -^515002.

¶14

Also at:-

¶15

R/o. H.No.5-144, Ananthasagaram Malyava ntha, AnantaPUr - 515661.

...Defendants

oA.NO.760/202s

Counsel for the Applicant

¶20

: Ms. Tarangini Pisipati

Defenda nts

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.5,02,36,802.39ps i.e., a sum of Rs.39,85,404.75ps towards Education Loan A/c. No.152230100001237 with interest @12.50%^p.a., a sum of Rs.71,31,231.33ps towards Agriculture Term Loan A/c. No.152216040000001 with interest @13.85%^p.a., a sum of Rs.24,64,851/- towards Personal Loan A/c. No.152216680000002 with interest @13.80% p.a., a sum of Rs.3,46,50,322.69ps towards Agriculture Farm Loan A/c. No.152216390000001 with interest @!4.70o/o p.a. and a sum of Rs.2o,04,992.62ps towards KCC Crop Loan A/c. No.152215030000001 with interest @12.35o/o p.a. from the defendants^jointly and severally from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and,in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶25

Summons served on DL to 3 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 06.01.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined Siddartha Penakalapati, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 50 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.50. Applicant bank filed part satisfaction memo daled 07.O4.2026 reporting that the bank realized the amount of Rs.1,13,15,540/- by way of sate of OA schedutgll property in the auction proceedings under the SARFAEST {yr{$*

¶27

oA.NO.760/2025

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.50 marked on behalf of the^{ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the^Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and^{severallyliable} to^pay the OA claim, Less^{Rs.1,13,15,540/- being the amount} realised by way of sale of OA schedule A^property to^the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the^present Original Application^{No.76012025is} allowed as under:^-

¶34

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.5,02,36,802.39ps LLess ) Rs. 1, 13, 15,540/realised in the auction^proceedings under the SARFAESI Act; with future interest @10.20olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶35

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of^mortgage of properties described in the^schedules annexed to the OA and the applicant^{bank is} //M*'*

¶36

(/^-r*'

¶37

¶38

oA.NO.750/202S

¶39

entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debU

¶40

iii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its balance dues;

¶41

iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

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 2ln Day ofApril, 2026).

¶45

/^{--/a'v'lJ -'} SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Boyapati Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Boyapati Mahesh

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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Sri Shanmukha Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mrs. Shabana Begum Moulvi

Smt Shaik Farzana and two others versus Khan Patan

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Ameya Laboratories Limited

State Bank of India versus M/s. Ar Electronics.

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Keshar Gypsum Steels