UNION BANK OF INDIA vs R. DHANALAKSHMI on 13 November 2025

1. R.Dhanalakshmi

Proprietrix, Seematti,

Main Road, Kollam.

2. V.Ramachandra Reddiar (Died. LRs on record)

Seematti, Main Road,

Kollam.

3. R.Veeresh Kumar,

Seematti, Main Road,

Kollam.

4. R.Ananthakumar

Seematti, Main Road,

Kollam.

…Defendants

This Original Application having been heard on 28.10.2025 in the presence of Advocate Sri.Sadchith P.Kurup for the applicant bank and Advocates M/s.P.Shrihari and Mary Nithiya K.J for the defendants and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following: F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed under S.13(10) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.1,13,06,374.36 due under CCH account and term loan account together with future interest thereon @14% per annum with monthly rests from defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally and by sale of the hypothecated assets (no schedule of hypothecated assets is annexed to the OA). Facts of the case:

2. The applicant is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office at Mumbai and one of its branches at Kollam.

3. The 1st defendant is the proprietrix of M/s.Seematti, Kollam which is engaged in textile business. The 2nd defendant is the husband of 1st defendant and defendants 3 and 4 are their sons. At the request of the 1st defendant, applicant bank sanctioned a cash credit hypothecation facility of Rs.1.75 crores on 28.09.1999 and she availed the facility after executing necessary security documents in favour of the bank. The said facility was enhanced/renewed subsequently. As primary security for the loan, the 1st defendant hypothecated various textile goods kept at the business premises situated at Main Road, Kollam and equitable mortgage was created over seven items of immovable properties by the respective defendants towards collateral security for the facility. The defendants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors for the loan. The defendants have also availed a working capital term loan of Rs.25 lakhs on 29.06.2002 to meet their business requirements. The equitable mortgage created over the aforesaid seven items of properties was extended to secure the term loan by executing letter of extension of mortgage. Further, defendants 2 to 4 executed guarantee agreement to secure the term loan as well.

4. After availing the facilities, the 1st defendant did not make proper repayments. Hence the applicant issued lawyer notice to the defendants on 18.01.2008 calling upon them to repay the outstanding dues. Despite the notice, the defendants have not come forward to liquidate the liability. Consequent to classification of the loans as NPA, the applicant initiated recovery proceeding under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and seven items of mortgaged properties were sold for Rs.1,38,55,123/- and the said amount was credited in the loan accounts. As the defendants did not clear the balance outstanding dues, applicant bank was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover an aggregate sum of Rs.1,13,06,374.36 together with pendente lite and post decree interest thereon from defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally and by sale of the hypothecated assets;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendants;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank. Written statement 5.1 The defendants filed written statement contending at the outset that the OA is barred by limitation and hence it is liable to be rejected. It is claimed that the outstanding amount shown in the account statement is not correct. The defendants 2 to 4 had not guaranteed any of the credit facilities granted to the 1st defendant. The documents produced by the applicant are never executed with the knowledge of the defendants as they were executed in blank forms which were later filled by the bank and hence they cannot be acted upon. The execution of memorandum of extension of equitable mortgage did not arise for the reason that there has been no creation of mortgage. 5.2 In the written statement, the defendants raised counterclaim on the ground that the mortgaged properties were sold at a very low price, and the auction purchasers made payments belatedly. If the sale had been conducted after getting proper valuation, more than Rs.2 crores alleged to be due could have been realized. The applicant has attached properties worth more than Rs.4 crores for the alleged dues of less than Rs.1.50 crores which is per se illegal. The mental agony, stress and strain inflicted upon the defendants by the illegal act of the applicant is entitled to be compensated by them. Hence the defendants raised a counter claim of Rs.5 crores against the applicant. 5.3 The defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed additional written statements contending inter alia that the accounts maintained by the applicant are not proper and cannot be relied upon. There is difference in the principal amount shown in the OA in respect of the cash credit and term loan accounts. There is no agreement to compound interest and to charge interest on expenses. Further, it is submitted that necessary directions may be given to the applicant bank not to debit or adjust any part of the interest and charges towards Rs.6.10 lakhs payable to the auction purchaser from the credit balance outstanding in the defendants’ account.

6. The applicant bank filed written statement to the counter claim contending that the defendants filed SA No.66/2006 challenging the measures adopted by the bank prior to the sale and no challenge has been made to the sale proceeding in the SA. The validity of measures adopted by the bank in the securitisation proceedings is to be adjudicated in an application filed under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act. The cause of action raised by the defendants stood concluded prior to filing of the OA and hence no adjudication can be made in respect of the counter claim and they are not entitled to get any amount from the applicant. Proof Affidavit:

7. To establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mr.R.Santhosh, Senior Manager and Mr.Navaneeth K., Branch Manager have filed proof affidavit and additional proof affidavit respectively and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A61.

8. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed counter proof affidavit and additional proof affidavits denying the claim of the applicant bank. It is contended inter alia that the OA is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. The defendants have suffered huge loss by way of sale of the properties at a grossly inadequate price and also belated payment by the auction purchasers. The amount charged under the SARFAESI Act after sale of the secured assets is not permissible. The applicant has attached properties worth more than Rs.4 crores as against the dues of less than Rs.1.50 crores. The amount of damages incurred on the defendants by the illegal acts of the applicant amounts to Rs.5 crores and hence they raised a counter claim for the said amount. In the account statements produced by the applicant marked as Annexures-A62 to A64 are disputed as the bank failed to segregate the penal interest and expenses charged in the accounts. The applicant bank is legally obligated to give interest at bank rate on the credit balance of Rs.86,70,364.73 as on 30.03.2021 standing in the loan account. The claim of Rs.12,31,650/- in respect of expenses, charges and debits made without supporting documents is illegal and unsustainable. In view of the above, the OA may be dismissed with costs.

9. From the respective case of the parties, the following issues are framed for adjudication:

(i) Whether the applicant bank is entitled to recover the claim amount of Rs.1,13,06,374.36 along with pendente lite and post-decree interest from defendants 1, 3 and 4?

(ii) Whether the counterclaim filed by defendants 1, 3 and 4 is maintainable and barred by limitation?

(iii) Whether defendants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to get any damage as advanced in the counterclaim?

(iv) To what extent, the applicant and defendants are entitled to get relief in this case? Issue Nos.(i) and (ii):

10. During the hearing, the counsel learned for the applicant submitted that the bank has done all calculation of interest in the right manner. The counterclaim of Rs.4 crores raised by the defendants is unsustainable as the way the same was arrived at has not been clearly stated by the defendants. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the securitization measures adopted by the bank. The defendants have challenged the proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as well as before this Tribunal and all their efforts to scuttle the recovery proceeding have turned futile. The approval of measures was obtained through the dismissal of TSA No.10/2016 filed by the defendants before the Tribunal and hence the counterclaim is only to be dismissed.

11. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the attachment made in IA No.242/2008 was lifted upon furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs.3 crores by the defendants. As per the direction of the Tribunal, proceeds of the bank guarantee were credited into the two loan accounts. Consequently, the term loan account was closed and there is a credit balance of Rs.86,70,364.73 as on 30.03.2021 in the cash credit account. It is also submitted that an amount of Rs.12,31,650/- is due from the defendants to the costs and charges incurred by the bank till date. There is no discrepancy in the account statements produced by the applicant. It is strenuously submitted that conclusiveness of a statement of account once certified is treated to be a public document and has got legal presumption under Section 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891. The OA has been filed along with supporting documents to prove the claim of the bank and hence a final order may be passed to realize the amount due to it from the

defendants, subject to the subsequent receipts through the bank guarantee.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for defendants 1, 3 and 4 contended that the OA is barred by limitation and hence the same is to be dismissed at the threshold itself. The applicant bank has exhausted its security by public auction in 2006 and has not proved any residual liability. It is contended that the account statements are unreliable and inadmissible in evidence and the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act supplies only prima facie evidence. The post-auction debits amounting to Rs.12,31,650/- lacks authorization and hence the same is not recoverable from the borrower/guarantors which is against the prudential norms of RBI. The bank admits a credit balance of Rs.86,70,364.73 as on 30.03.2021 which is to be returned to the defendants with interest. It is claimed that dismissal of any previous SA does not extinguish the defendants’ right to claim damages under S.19(8) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The unauthorized sale of 3 cents of non-mortgaged land under the SARFAESI Act is void. The learned counsel pleaded to refund the surplus amount with interest and allow the counterclaim of Rs.4,86,02,015/- raised by the defendants.

13. On careful evaluation of the submissions of both sides and the available materials, it appears that the 1st defendant availed a CCH facility of Rs.1.75 crores and a working capital term loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the applicant bank respectively on 28.09.1999 and 29.06.2002. The defendants 2 to 4 executed guarantee agreements guaranteeing due repayment of the amount due under the loan accounts vide Ext.A4, A13, A21, A29, A34 and A48. While availing the credit facility, defendants 1 to 4 created equitable mortgage over seven items of immovable properties by depositing respective title deeds with the applicant bank. Thereafter, the mortgage was extended from time to time by the respective defendants to secure the outstanding loan amount which is evident from the documents marked as Exts.A14 to A16, A22 to A25, A35 to A38 and A49 to A53.

14. Due to default in repayment, the applicant bank initiated recovery proceeding under the provisions of SARFAESI Act after classifying the accounts as NPA and all the seven items of mortgaged properties were sold for Rs.1,38,55,123/-. After appropriation of the said amount in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.92,16,809.36 and Rs.20,89,565/- are outstanding in the CCH account and term loan account respectively as on 31.01.2008 which is evident from the account statements marked as Exts.A57

and A58. Since the outstanding dues are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the mortgaged properties and the defendants have also not taken any step to liquidate the liability, the applicant bank filed the instant case under S.13(10) of the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the balance amount from the borrowers.

15. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for defendants 1, 3 and 4 is that the OA claim is barred by limitation. On perusal of the materials, it could be discerned that defendants 2 to 4 jointly executed Ext.A48 letter of guarantee dated 30.03.2005 for Rs.2,00,45,000/- agreeing to repay the said amount with interest on such amount or at such less amount as may be due at the rate which the principal may become liable to pay to the bank from the date of principal’s default until payment. Further, it could be seen that defendants 1 to 4 executed Exts.A49 to A53 letter of extension of mortgage dated 30.03.2005 admitting the creation of mortgage in respect of the seven items of immovable properties by the respective defendants and further confirmed that the said mortgage is valid, subsisting and shall continue as security for the bank’s dues against M/s.Seematti, Kollam. The OA was presented before the Tribunal on 31.01.2008 i.e., within three years from the date of execution of the aforesaid documents and hence the contention of the learned counsel that the OA is barred by limitation is not sustainable. Further, the defendants could not disprove the execution of the aforesaid documents by adducing any evidence and mere denial of execution of the same does not hold water. Hence the applicant is entitled to get the amount as claimed in the OA together with pendente lite interest from the date of filing of this case till the date of realization. Issue No.(i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the applicant. Issue No.(iii):

16. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 raised a counterclaim of Rs.4,86,02,015/- with interest thereon @14.50% per annum from 2006 till payment alleging the loss suffered in respect of the illegal sale of the immovable properties for inadequate price, illegal attachment of the properties and damages for mental agony, strain etc. suffered by them. According to the applicant bank, proceeding under the SARFAESI Act has been taken against the defendants in accordance to the law and there is no loss of reputation caused to the defendants. The defendants have not adduced any documentary evidence to support the counterclaim made in the written statement. So also, there is no iota of evidence to support the plea of loss of reputation, mental agony, stress and strain inflicted upon them. In such premises, defendants 1, 3 and 4 are not entitled to recover the alleged claim made in this case.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2022 (6) KLT SN 32 in the case of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. it is held as follows: “50. We must also notice an important aspect that even where a defendant is to invoke the jurisdiction of the DRT by filing a counterclaim, the bank has a right to seek a relegation of that claim to the Civil Court and the DRT has been empowered to do so, albeit, at the final adjudication stage. This is so in view of the summary nature of remedy provided before the DRT and thus, if certain inquiries beyond the contours of what the DRT does are envisaged, a Civil Court remedy may be considered as appropriate.” In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the findings stated above, counterclaim by the defendants 1, 3 and 4 in this forum is not sustainable before this Tribunal and in absence proof of the claim advanced in the counter claim, they are not entitled to get any relief. Hence issue No.(iii) is answered accordingly.

Issue No.(iv):

18. The records would reveal that pending the OA, the applicant bank filed IA No.242/2008 seeking attachment of 91.500 cents of land along with all improvements therein in Mullakkal Village jointly owned by defendants 2 to 4. As there was no sufficient security to recover the OA claim of Rs.1,13,06,374.36, the property was attached as per order dated 25.02.2008 which was made absolute on 21.04.2015. Subsequently, defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed IA No.1089/2015 seeking to lift the order of attachment passed by the Tribunal and furnished a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.3 crores as security in terms of the attachment order dated 25.02.2008. As the applicant bank has no objection in lifting the attachment order upon acceptance of the bank guarantee, IA No.1089/2015 was allowed and the attachment effected in respect of the attachment schedule property was lifted vide order dated 14.05.2015 in IA No.1089/2015. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application bearing IA No.260/2021 before this Tribunal for invocation of the bank guarantee furnished by them. Accordingly, at the instance of the defendants, the Tribunal directed the applicant bank to invoke the bank guarantee and appropriate the proceeds thereof into the loan account of the borrowers, subject to final decision in the OA vide order dated 05.03.2021 in IA No.260/2021.

19. On perusal of the account statements produced by the applicant bank, it could be inferred that the applicant bank has appropriated the sum of Rs.3 crores covered under the bank guarantee in the cash credit and term loan accounts, details of which are furnished below: Date Cash credit account Term loan account 25.03.2021 Rs.2,25,31,807/- Rs.24,34,016/- 25.03.2021 Rs.36,27,907/- Rs.14,06,270/-

Total

Rs.2,61,59,714/-

Rs.38,40,286/-

According to the applicant bank, consequent to appropriation of the aforesaid amount, the term loan account was closed and there is a credit balance of Rs.86,70,364.73 in the cash credit account as on 30.03.2021.

20. S.19(20) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest on an application being filed as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. After filing of the case, applicant bank is not entitled to charge interest at contractual rate on the outstanding dues. In such premises, the surplus amount to be refunded to the defendants shall be computed based on the interest awarded by the Tribunal.

21. The applicant bank in the statement marked Ext.A61 filed on 04.08.2025 has claimed that after filing of the OA, an amount of Rs.12,31,650/- is expended under the head ‘legal charges’ and hence the said amount is to be recovered from the defendants. It could be seen that all the expenses met by the bank till the date of filing of this case as regards the securitisation measures, fee paid to advocates and other legal charges are debited in the cash credit account vide Ext.A57 which is included in the OA claim as well. The defendants have raised dispute in general against such statement. It is seen that the statement is supported by a certificate issued by the chief manager under amended Bankers’ Book Evidence Act. The law is well settled that any Judicial or Official Act have been regularly performed which is presumed to be correct. In absence of any rebuttal evidence in denial of the same, there is no reason to discard such statement. Hence the applicant is also entitled to realize the same from the defendants.

22. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the entire claim made in this case is recovered by the bank by invoking the bank guarantee, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to get pendente lite interest @12% per annum, which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

23. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover:

(i) the sum of Rs.92,16,809.36 (Rupees ninety two lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred and nine and Paise thirty six only) due under the cash credit account together with pendente lite interest thereon @12% per annum from 01.02.2008 till 25.03.2021, less the sum of Rs.2,61,59,714/- (Rupees two crores sixty one lakhs fifty nine thousand seven hundred and fourteen only) recovered by the applicant bank by invoking the bank guarantee on 25.03.2021;

(ii) the sum of Rs.20,89,565/- (Rupees twenty lakhs eighty nine thousand five hundred and sixty five only) due under the term loan account together with

pendente lite interest thereon @12% per annum from 01.02.2008 till 25.03.2021, less the sum of Rs.38,40,286/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs forty thousand two hundred and eighty six only) recovered by the applicant by invoking the bank guarantee on 25.03.2021; and

(iii) also costs and expenses amounting to Rs.12,31,650/- (Rupees twelve lakhs thirty one thousand six hundred and fifty only) borne by it as per Ext.A61 account statement for realization of the loans from the date of filing of the TA till 12.02.2025 and any amount accrued thereafter from defendants 1, 3 and 4.

24. The counterclaim advanced by defendants 1, 3 and 4 is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

25. In view of the findings and the relief granted, defendants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to recover the surplus amount together with accrued interest thereon from 25.03.2021 at the fixed deposit interest rate prevailed as on 25.03.2021 till the date of payment after adjusting all the expenses and interest, if any. The applicant bank shall calculate the amount receivable by the defendants and file a statement before the Recovery Officer within a month of passing this judgment. The Recovery Officer shall refund the surplus amount to defendants 1, 3 and 4 within a reasonable period i.e., within a month after receipt of the statement from the applicant bank.

26. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

27. Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

28. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 13th day of November, 2025)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Sri.R.Santhosh, Senior Manager of the applicant bank. AW2: Sri.Navaneeth K., Branch Manager of the applicant. Witness for Defendant(s):

DW1:

Sri.R.Ananthakumar, 4th defendant.

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 28.09.1999 Demand promissory note for Rs.1.75 crores executed by the 1st defendant. A2 28.09.1999 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant. A3 28.09.1999 Hypothecation goods agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A4 28.09.1999 Letter of guarantee executed by defendants 2 to

4. A5 29.09.1999 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds drawn by the applicant bank. A6

29.09.1999 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds drawn by the applicant bank in respect of title deed No.3455/1982. A7

29.09.1999 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds drawn by the applicant bank in respect of title deed No.4340/1993. A8

13.10.1999 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds drawn by the applicant bank in respect of title deed No.331/1976. A9

13.10.1999 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds drawn by the applicant bank. A10 05.04.2000 Demand promissory note for Rs.1,92,50,000/- executed by the 1st defendant. A11 05.04.2000 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant.

A12 05.04.2000 Hypothecation (goods) agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A13 05.04.2000 Letter of guarantee executed by defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the applicant bank. A14 05.04.2000 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. A15 05.04.2000 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A16 05.04.2000 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by defendants 3 and 4. A17 06.04.2000 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds drawn by the applicant bank. A18 12.10.2000 Demand promissory note for Rs.2 crores executed by the 1st defendant. A19 12.10.2000 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant. A20 12.10.2000 Hypothecation agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A21 12.10.2000 Letter of guarantee executed by defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the applicant bank. A22 12.10.2000 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. A23 12.10.2000 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A24 12.10.2000 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A25 12.10.2000 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by defendants 3 and 4. A26 18.06.2002 Demand promissory note for Rs.1.75 crores executed by the 1st defendant. A27 18.06.2002 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant. A28 18.06.2002 Hypothecation agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A29 18.06.2002 Letter of guarantee executed by defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the applicant bank.

A30 29.06.2002 Demand promissory note for Rs.25 lakhs executed by the 1st defendant. A31 29.06.2002 Letter issued by the applicant bank and the terms of which are acknowledged by the 1st defendant. A32 29.06.2002 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant. A33 29.06.2002 Hypothecation agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A34 29.06.2002 Letter of guarantee executed by defendants 2 to

4. A35 29.06.2002 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. A36 29.06.2002 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A37 29.06.2002 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A38 29.06.2002 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by defendants 3 and 4. A39 04.02.2005 Demand promissory note for Rs.1.75 crores executed by the 1st defendant. A40 04.02.2005 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant. A41 04.02.2005 Hypothecation agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A42 04.02.2005 Letter of negative lien executed by the 1st defendant. A43 04.02.2005 Letter of undertaking executed by the 1st defendant. A44 30.03.2005 Demand promissory note for Rs.25.45 lakhs executed by the 1st defendant. A45 30.03.2005 Hypothecation agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A46 30.03.2005 Letter of negative lien executed by the 1st defendant. A47 30.03.2005 General term loan agreement executed by the 1st defendant. A48 30.03.2005 Letter of guarantee executed by the defendants.

A49 30.03.2005 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. A50 30.03.2005 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A51 30.03.2005 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A52 30.03.2005 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant. A53 30.03.2005 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by defendants 3 and 4. A54 16.04.2005 Letter issued to the applicant bank by the 1st defendant. A55 18.01.2008 Copy of lawyer notice issued to the defendants by the applicant bank calling upon them to repay the outstanding dues. A56 21.01.2008 Postal receipts (4 Nos.) evidencing dispatch of lawyer notice to the defendants. A57 … Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the cash credit facility. A58 … Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the term loan. A59 10.02.2025 Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the cash credit facility. A60 10.02.2025 Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the term loan. A61 17.02.2025 Certified copy of the account statement of legal charges.

Defendants’ Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 13th November, 2025

TA No.1412/2016 (OA No.56/2008)

Between

Union Bank of India, Kollam Branch, Kollam.

…Applicant

And

R.Dhanalakshmi Proprietrix, Seematti, Main Road, Kollam & 3 others.

...Defendants

F I N A L O R D E R