Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Gayathri Minerals

DRT16 Apr 2026OA/855/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An DT admitted an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan default sum of Rs. 1.02 crore with future interest and costs. The respondents remained ex-parte. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held the claim established via evidence, declaring the respondents jointly and severally liable and directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered to pay Rs. 1.02 crore with future interest at 11.95% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; Cost memo to be filed.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Gayathri Minerals — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TtI DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 855 OF 2025

¶5

Union Bank of hdia., Dhone Branch, Kurnool, Door No.9/33 to 36 KVS Colony, Kothapeta, Dhone, A.P - 51A222. Rep, by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

....,Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Gayathri Minerals., A Partnershlp Firm, Represented by Its Partners, Factory at Survey No.178 S V Rural Farmers, Ware House Backside Bellary Road, Konagandla Village Vajrakaru Mandal, Guntakal Anantapur District - 515842.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Regstered Office at H.No.1-2-C Upstairs Rajeev Na9ar, Kondapeta, Dhone-518222.

¶11

Mr. Somula Venkata Prasad Reddy S/o. S V Subba Reddy, Aged about 55 Years, Occ: Business, Male R/o. H.No.5-1-12, Paturu Veedhi Allagadda - 518543.

¶12

Mr. Manne Chinna Nagi Reddy S/o. Manne Pedda Pulla Reddy Aged about 40 Years, Occ: Business, Male R/o. H.No.7-12, Nehru Nagar Near Sarada School, Dhone - 5tA222.

¶13

Mrs. Y. Srinija, D/o. Y Rajeev Reddy Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Business, Female R^/o. H. No.1-98/9/24 to 26lxFl801, xeno Summit Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur Serilingampalli, Hyderabad-500081.

0'w6'\4-\

oA.NO.8s5/202s

f,lr. C. Vijay Kumar Reddy, S/o. C. Hanu mantha Reddy Aged about 37 Years, Occ: Business Male, H. No.1-71, Chigicherla, Dharmavaram Ananthapur District - 515671.

¶18

Mr. Lakkasan i Sarat Chandra S/o. L. Venugopal Reddy, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Business,^Male R/o. T2, Akhila Valley Apartments Road No.12, Behind Banjara^Hills,Opp: Famillar Hospita l, Banjarahills Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500034.

¶19

Mr. Jaggu Bhanu Harish, s/o. Ja99u Prasad, Aged about 34 Years Occ: Business, Male, R/o. H. No.20-¹²⁹ Anjaneyaswamy Temple Street Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District-515671.

¶20

Mrs. Ja99u Nagaratnamma, Wo. Ja99u Prasad, Aged about 57 Years Occ: Business, Female, R/o.^{H. No.20- 129} Anjaneyaswamy Temple Street Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District-515671.

¶21

lYr. Somula Venkata Gowtham Reddy S/o. S V Prasad Reddy, Aged about^{26 Years} Occ: Business, Male, R/o. H.No.4-448-A10 Gipson Colony, Kurnool - 518001.

¶22

1.4r. Aduri Sekhar Reddy, S/o.A.Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 54 Years, Occ: Business Male, R/o. D.No.7-2-16-11, Dr. Pocha Prabhakar Reddy Nagar, Revenue Ward No. 7, Dhone - 578222. . .. Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the Applicant Defenda nts : Ex-parte

oa.No.855/202s

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1.02,20,845.12ps towards OCCGN A/c. No. 011113100095351 from the defendants joinuy and severally with future interest @15.300/o p.a. plus 2o/o pendl interest with monthly rest from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶28

Summons served on D4, 5, 9 & 10, whereas summons served on Dl to 3 & D6 to 8 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 27.01.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶29

The Applicant Bank examined K. Rajesh, Chief l4anager, as AWl and marked 30 documents through him as Ex. A.l to Ex. A.30.

¶30

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

¶31

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶32

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

¶33

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Amdavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.30 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 toAe Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. // )w.,r" L-,,^{--\C\ -"}

¶34

oA.NO.855/2025

¶35

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.855/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶36

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to pay to the Applicant^Bank a^{sum of} Rs.1,02,20,845.12ps towards^{OCCGN A/c.} No. 011113100095351 with^{future interest} @11.95olo^{p.a. simple from the date of} application till the date of^realization;

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶40

The Applicant Bank is directed to^file Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

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 thisthe 16'h Day ofApril,2026).

¶43

//fu*",u ( M{TIESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Gayathri Minerals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. Gayathri Minerals

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

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Pabbati Srikanth

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Gopi Krishna Pulimaddi

State Bank of India versus Tiara Plastic Corporation

The Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Danne Jangaiah

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Siri Business and Infra(Sbi-Hyderabad)

Cvv Sai Kumar versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.