Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Marineni Purushotam

DRT29 Jul 2026OA/914/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding dues, holding defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount with future interest and permitting enforcement of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 51,58,419 with future interest; entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and person/properties of defendants; costs awarded and Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Marineni Purushotam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 914 OF²⁰²³

¶4

UNION BANK OF INDIA Having its Registered Office^at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai^and its branch at Bathalapalli,^{Anantapur Dist} Rep. by its Senior Manager^{and Principal Officer}

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

MARINENI PURUSHOTHAM Son of M^{P VenkataramapPa Major} Pullampalli Village Tadimarri Mandal Sri SathYa Sai^District Andhra Pradesh-515661

¶8

MARINENI^{VARADA RAJKUMAR} Son of Marineni^Purushotham Pullampalli Village Tadimarri Mandal Sri SathYa Sai^District Andhra Pradesh-515661

¶9

MARINENI^{VENKATA NARAYANA} S/o ChalaPathi,^Major 2-16, Malyavantham, BathalaPalli^Mandal Sri SathYa Sai^District Andhra Pradesh-515661

¶10

MARINENI^HARISH S/o Bhaktavatsalam,^Major D.No- 1/197, Edula Mustoor, BathalaPalli Mandal, Sri SathYa Sai^District Andhra r.i.tn-t$UfurU

... Defendants

OA No.91412023

2of5

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defendant No. 1 Counsel for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4

¶15

: Mr, P. Balaji : Mr. M. N. Srinivasan : Ex-parte

¶16

:: ORDER::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,58,419l- from the Defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severaily with future interest @ 13.90olo p.a. with monthly rests from ol.tr.2023 till the date of realisation along with costs, and in default, sale of oA mortgaged properties.

¶18

The averments of the Appricant Bank, as stated in the oA, in brief, are that Defendant No.1 had avaired an Agricurturar Term Loan of Rs. 20,00,000 in 20r5 and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had subsequentry avaired a crop Loan of Rs. 3,00,000 in 2016, which were secured by hypothecation of crops, creation of a registered simpre mortgage over agricultural land, and execution of the requisite roan and security documents. The appricant asserts that the defendants committed defaurts in repayment, resurting in the loan accounts being crassified as NpA. Despite issuance of a regar demand notice dated o8.og.2o23, the defendants alregedry faired to crear the dues. consequenily, the appricant approached this Tribunar by firing the present oA seeking recovery of the outstanding dues by enforcement of the mortgaged properties.

¶19

Defendant No.1 filed a written statement contesting the maintainability of the oA both on facts and in raw, seeking its dismissar at the threshord. The defendant contends that the craim is barred by limitation; disputes the execution of the loan and security documents; denies having committed any defaurt or having been served with any notice regarding NPA crassification or demand notice; chailenges the rate of

Ow*"

OA No.91412023

3of5

interest as being contrary to RBI guidelines and settled law; disputes the outstanding amount of Rs. 51,58,419 as excessive and unsupported; and further contends that the statement of account is inadmissible for noncompliance with the provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. The principal defence of the defendant is that the mortgaged property is agricultural land and, therefore, by virtue of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the provisions of the Act are inapplicable and the proceedings initiated thereunder are liable to be declared null and void.

¶24

Summonses served on defendants 2 to 4 and were set ex-parte on 24.06.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶25

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Mr, N. Sreenivasulu, Assistant Manager as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-13.

¶26

In order to substantiate his defence, 1st defendant Mr. Marineni Purushotham, examined himself as DW-1 and marked no documents.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank. The right of the Defendant No.1 to advance oral arguments was forfeited by order dated 23.02.2026, despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded. Perused the written arguments filed by the Defendant No.1 and also perused the material placed on record.

¶28

B. Learned Counsel for the applicant places reliance upon Exs.A-1 to Exs.A-13 marked through applicant evidence (AW-1) as proof of tlaim of the bank and submitted that the applicant bank is entitled for recovery of the outstanding amount togelher with future interest and costs and invoking the mortgage a""a. /A\V^^t. '6''t'*

¶29

OA No.914/2023

¶30

4of5

¶31

Learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 reiterated the contents of the written statement and contended claim is barred by limitation; disputes the execution of the loan and security documents; denies having committed any default or having been served with any notice regarding NPA classification or demand notice. It was further submitted that the statement of account is not admissible for non-compliance with the provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and that the computation of interest is erroneous and contrary to law. On these grounds, learned counsel^prayed for dismissal of the OA.

¶32

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶33

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim aqa inst the Defenda nts?

¶34

According to the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant Bank, the Defendants availed a Agricultural Term Loan and failed to discharge the liability despite repeated requests. Exhibits A.1 to A.5, marked through AW-1, amply prove that the Defendants availed such facilities but failed to repay the same. The 1't defendant filed written statement and evidence affidavit but did not^produce any documentary evidence in support of his defence. Defendant principally contended that the claim is barred by limitation, disputed the execution of the loan and security documents, and denied having committed any default or receipt of the NPA classification notice and the demand notice. Ex. A.12 statement of account rebuts credit entry on 24.11.202L and a legal notice was issued on 08.09.2023. Hence OA filed on U.ll.2023 is well within limitation. Apart from the bald statements, the Defendant neither chose to mark any documents to substantiate his pleas, nor chose to cross-examine AW- 1 to disprove the veracity of Exs. A.1to A.13, the material papers relied on by the Applicant

Ofu6rx

OA No.914/2023

5of5

Bank. On the other hand, the evidence affidavit oF AW-1, coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.13, amply prove the claim of the bank, Accordingly, the OA deserves to be allowed, holding the Defendants severally liable to pay the OA claim with future interest.

¶39

In the result, the present Original Application No.9l4/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶40

(i) The Defendant No. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 51,58,419lwith future interest rate @ t2o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization i

¶41

(ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties as described in Schedules annexed to the OA and applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for realisation of dues;

¶42

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

¶43

(iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs;

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶46

2t. Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. signed and^pronounced bv me in -fflW..ll,lr.r" !?1ffi:;HJ,f;;:rf,.o,,".t"u,

¶47

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Marineni Purushotam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Marineni Purushotam

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

Ms St Jobs Christian Minority Educational Society versus Canara Bank

Ms Trmr Earth Movers Transport versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Mr Dumpala Venkata Laxmi Narayana versus Indian Bank

Yes Bank Limited versus Karthik Namani

Canara Bank versus M/s. Unique and Nice Restaurant.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Gsr Enterprises.