Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s. S RTraders.

DRT23 Jan 2026OA/921/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-II at Hyderabad dismissed an ex-parte application by Union Bank of India and granted recovery against the defendants. The court ruled that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan amount with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.1,33,32,642.50 with future interest at 14.70% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants for recovery; costs awarded.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF ]ANUARY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 921 OF 2025

¶4

U nion Bank of India., Kothapet ([4icro Finance) Branch Ground Floor, Plot No.54,55 & 56 Huda Colony, Beside PVT Market

¶5

Kothapet, Hyderabad - 50003 5. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

. ....Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. lvl/s. S R Traders., Rep by its Managing Partner lYr. Mohammed Rasool Basha Sr No.193, 32-77122126, Silarcm Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri Hyderabad, Telangana - 500056.

¶9

1. lvlr. Mohammed Rasool Basha S/o. Mr. Mohammed Peer Basha Age Major, Occ: Business, Male Flat No.601. Block A, Adithya Imperial Heights, Hafeezpet Flyover, Hafeezpet Hyderabad, T€langana - 500049.

¶10

1. Mrs. Shakila Beebi, Wo.Mr.Mohammed Rasool Basha, age Major, Occ: Business Flat No.601, Block A, Adithya Imperial Heights, Hafeezpet Flyover, Hafeezpet Hyderabad, Telangana - 500049. ... Defendants

¶11

: Mr. D S Pavan Kumar

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

oA.NO.9211202s

¶14

:: ORDER ::

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,33,32,642.50ps towards Loan Alc. No. t30725080000002 from the defendants joinily and severally with future interest @14.70o/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶16

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper pubrication. They were set ex-parte on 09.01.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined p. yadagiri, Senior Branch Manager, a5'AfilYr"dnd marked 21 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.21.

¶18

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

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedute property?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The ;i4..-.ui,.ri',,ir**isiri';rrEy-lde"n9-A"rr,lff[CRXi-k$4,$FJ.Sdi*;w.iithi#h$r#p"gHl$rL&**hMnr*mo,

¶22

viz., Exs. A.1 to A.21 marked on beharf 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 to the Appliqant Bank with future interest and costs ffir*

¶23

oA.NO.921l2025

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.92112025 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.1,33,32,642.50ps towards Loan A/c. No. 130725080000002 with future interest @L2.70o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

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 23'd Day ofJanuary, 202G).

¶32

OY*"a (EAf4ESHWAR KoTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/s. S RTraders.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s. S RTraders.

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

Chikatla Vishnumurthy versus Union Bank of India

Smt B Manogna versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Indian Bank versus M/s. Agarwal Trading Co.

Ramakanth Inani versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Sri. G. Satyanarayana

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kakalwar Suresh