Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Mohini Podupu Sangham

DRT18 Mar 2026OA/92/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 21,60,272 along with future interest from defaulting High School staff and their Self Help Group. The bank was also granted permission to realize the debt from hypothecated movables and properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,60,272 with future interest, costs, and permission to realize debt from hypothecated movables and properties.

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Mohini Podupu Sangham — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18H DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.92 of 2026

¶4

Between:

¶5

Union Bank of India, (E-Andhra Bank) H.No,2-3-188, shop No.56, Opp. New Bus Stand, Main Road, Narayankhed - 502 286. TS. Rep by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Mohini^podupu Sangham, Represented by its leaders I and 2

¶9

1. Mrs Nayini Kashamma and 2) Mrs.-Dobbula Mogulamma, #1-06^panchagaon,

¶10

Narayankhed - 502 2g6. Sanga reddy, TS.

¶11

Mrs. Nayini Kashamma,

¶12

!V-lo faVili^{Ka,shaiah, aged 57 years,} Female, #1-06 panchagaon,

¶13

Narayankhed - 502 28:6, Sangareddy, Telangana State.

¶14

Mrs. Dobbula Mogulamma, w/o Dobbula Kashaiah, aged 60 years, remate, # l-75/4, panchagaon, Narayankhed - 502 2g6, Sangareddy, Telangana State,

¶15

,.r\ 4. Mrs. Kotta Jarnamma, w/o Kotta Kishnaiah, aged 56 ye female, # l-75/ L, panchagaon, I iltn ilZ[ Narayankhed - SO2 2g6 Sa n ga reddy, r"ru n g;;'Stu t".

¶16

(oA.No.9212026)

¶17

Mrs, Dobbula Manamma, W/o Dobbula Manikaiah, Aged 57 years, female, #L-25, Panchagaon, Narayankhed - 502 286, Sangareddy, Telangana State.

¶18

Mrs. Metha Anitha, C/o Metha Sriman, aged 29 years, Female, # l-67, panchagaon, Narayankhed - 502 2g6, Sangareddy, Telangana State.

¶19

Mrs. Nayini Shyamala, w/o Nayini Subhash, aged 26 years, remate, # !-23/L, panchagaon, Narayankhed - SO2 286, Sangareddy, Telangana State.

¶20

B. Mrs Perladoddi Jayasheela, c/_o Raju, aged 39 years, female, #L -06,^panchagaon, Narayankhed - 502 296, Sangareddy, Telangana State.

¶21

Mrs. Kota Surekha, w/o Kota Ramulu, aged 32 years, remate, # l-79/ I, panchagaon, Narayankhed - SO2 296, Sangareddy, Telangana State.

¶22

Mrs. Chandrampet Chandramma, w/o C. Laxmaiah, aged 57 years', remale, .# l-79/L, panchagaon. Narayankhed - 5OZ 286, Sangareddy, Telangana State.

¶23

Mrs. Nayini Lachamma @Laxmi,

¶24

y/9 ryayi.lj Sarhaiah, aged 55 years,
female, #L-63, pancha-gaon, 'n .i, ;i >_j.,l
Nara yv ankhed - 5r}? SO2 raA 286 ..1,'^tr, lqo s'c. - -.;'/-,.-,.
Sangareddy, Telangana
Defendants
*
E' ,I g Wn lfi2fr
r,,
E)
' . ., (. i,ri.
dlr

¶25

(oA.No.92l2026)

¶26

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant : Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrala For the Defendants : Exparte Reserved on : t3.03.2026 Pronounced on : 18.03.2026 Uploaded in website on : 18.03,2026

¶27

ORDER

¶28

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2I-,6O,2l2l- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Two only) with future interest @ 10,3olo p.a with from 0r.L2.2025 tilr the date of rearization and in defaurt for sale of hypothecated movabres as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶29

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a self help group and defendants no.2 to 11 are its members availed loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 0L.02.2023. The defendants executed demand promissory note, retter of continuity, letter of general lien AD_02, inter se agreement, hypothecation agreement etc and hypothecated the movables in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account AS notiic,es. Inspite oF several requests and demands, the not cl&r the outstanding, Hence this OA. lollRmm^*

¶30

(oA.No.s2l2026)

¶31

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 13.03.2026.

¶32

4' Mr' K' Larteja, Assistant Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW'1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are markecr as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶35

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.14. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶36

In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointry and severa,y riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a totar suEl--p&B$,a1,60,2721- (Rupees Twenty one Lakhs v sixt y rho qs".illof;fiueafr&rftt#ed and seventy rwo onty) with future interest @-10'3%Fl: with fhm oL.t2.2o2s ti, the date of rearization. .: igulRm 1

¶37

(oA.No.92l2026)

¶38

9' The Appricant bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated movabres as mentioned in the schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶39

10' The Appricant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 11 and properties of defendant no.1 Sangham towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

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

¶41

The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶42

Issue Recovery certiflcate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

by her, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶45

Ifi.Iitji,jg f""rt;fu"::.Til!:j

¶46

sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

RUI
10 firnm
9.
t:.

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Mohini Podupu Sangham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S.Mohini Podupu Sangham

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

Smt Korukonda Battar Chudmani Died Per Lr versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Ganesh Agency

Gandu Srinivas Goud versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Nallabothu Narender

Kavitha Enterprises versus State Bank of India