Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sureswara Beverages.

DRT6 Apr 2026OA/787/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues. Defiants remained ex-parte. Judgment held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount with future interest and costs, and permitted action against hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.32,05,288.74 with future interest @10.50% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendant properties; costs to be borne by defendants.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 787 OF 2025

¶5

Union Bank of India., Kalyan Nagar Branch, Plot No.214 Main Road, Kalyan Nagar, Phase I Hyderabad - 500038, T.S. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Sureswara Beverages., Situated at H.No.15-83, Plot No.55 And 56, Medipally, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist, Telangana - 500092, Rep by its Partners

¶9

Smt. Dumpala Anitha, W/o. DumPala Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 50^Years Occ: Business, Plot No.29,^{R N Dream} Homes, Boduppal, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist, Telangana - 500092.

¶10

Smt. Polala Kalyani, W/o.^Polala Sandeep, Aged about^{27 Years} Occ: Business, D.No.5-3l1/129 RNS Colony, BoduPPal,^Medchal Malkajgiri Dist, Telangana -^500092'

¶11

Smt. Devidi^{Rajani, W/o. Devidi Vijaya} Bhaskar Reddy,^{Aged about 36 Years} Occ: Business,^{D.No.1-53/6, Surya Nagar} Colony, UpPal^{X Road, Medchal} Malkajgiri Dist,^Telangana -^500039'

¶12

Smt.^{PrashanthiPolala,W/o' Polala} Kondal Reddy,^{Aged about36 Years} Occ: Business,^{D.No.5-3l1/129,Road No'5} RNS Colony,^{Near Dream Home,Boduppal} r"reJcnar Mait<aigiri^{Dist, Telangana-5!$092.. ...Defendants} ffi"'\

¶13

oA.NO.787lZ025

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

: Mr. P. Bhiksheshwar

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.32,05,288.74ps as on 23.05.2025 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @14olo p.a, from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶20

WS not filed by Dl to 5 hence, their right was forfeited and were set ex-parte on 22.01.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Naveen Kumar Cherukuri, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 17 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.17.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assefs2

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupred with the recitars in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.17 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 O,l_aim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.^,./ffiu

¶26

0A.NO.787l202s

¶27

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.7A7/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.32,05,288.74ps with future interest @10.55o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

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 deb[

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

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 06th Day of April, 2026).

¶36

//Hr's*

¶37

(RIAT'CSHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sureswara Beverages.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sureswara Beverages.

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

Mekala Srinivas versus Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited

Ms Pranitha Jewellery Designer and Others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Smt Tirumalashetty Sujatha Krishna versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms. Neela Saron Blessy

Canara Bank versus Sri. Mudireddy Ranjith Reddy

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Mr. Sadhu N Vl Sri Nikhil