Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sri Laxmi Fertilizers

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the banks objection filed under Section 19 of RD&BA 1993 to recover approximately Rs 7.06 crore as outstanding dues from a borrower for an enhanced credit facility and guarantors, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs 7.06 crore with future interest at 12% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Sri Laxmi Fertilizers — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

iN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT: sH. MMESHWAR PRE5I#SJXE;F?;C;J'^{L'LB (Hons')'M A'}

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: tt2 OF 2023

¶3

HDFC Bank Limited Department for Special Operations H. No. 6-3--246 &. A_TZ+a/l,3rd Ftoor uesk No. 0196, Roxana palladium, Road No. 1 33llr_._.. IIb: Jp:sides^{virinchiHospitat)} Hyoerabad- 500034. Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶4

Versus

¶5

....Applicant.

¶6

1, M/s. Sri Laxmi Fertilizers Rep. by its^proprietor, Mr. Racharla Mahesh D No: 2-t22, Bazar Road. IB Tandur, BellamDallv. Mancheriat oistrici-SOlizt z Tetangana Stut" - ero"i

¶7

2, Mr. Racharla Mahesh S/o R. Vishwanatham, Age: Major, Occ: Business_ D No:2-103, Main Road, Tandur, Bellampally, Mancherial District-504272, Telangana State - proprietor

¶8

Mr. Racharla Ramesh S/o R, Vishwanatham, Age: Major, Occ: Business, D No: 2-103, Main Road, Tandur, Bellampally, Mancherial Disttict-504272, Telangana State - Guarantor

¶9

Mr. Racharla Hartsh S/o R. Vishwanatham, Age: Major, Occ: Business, D No: 2-103/1, Main Road, Tandur,Bellampatly, /7/.n,,z.ra'''.o'

¶10

oA.rr2l2023

¶11

Mancherial^{District- 504272'} rlangana^{State - Guarantor}

¶12

5 Mrs, Racharla^Vani " w/-o Mi. Racnarta Suresh' Aoe: Maior,^{Occ: Business'} o-t',to, 9-t96,^{IB Tandur} aeriimParrv,^Mancherial District-^504272, i"tungunu^{State - Guarantor}

¶13

.... Defendants

¶14

Counsel^{for the Applicant : M'V' KINI} Counsel^{for Defendants : A' VenkataNarayanaRao}

¶15

:: ORDER^::

¶16

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery} of Debts^{& BankruptcyAct' 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs'} L,06,46,766'g3^{ps with future interest@ 18o/o P'a' from the} respective^{defendantsjointly and severally from the date of OA till} the date^{of realisationatong witn costs and sale OA schedule assets'}

¶17

The averments^{of applicant bank as per the OA' briefly' are that} 1st defendant^{is a proprietorrepresentedby defendant 2 and rest of} the defendants^{are the guarantors'The applicant bank initially} sanctioned^{ODAPSeasonal Limits of Rs'17'00'000/-against collateral} security^{of residential an'dcommercialproperties initially' The credit} facilities^{extended to Defendant No' 1 were renewedand enhancedto} Rs.35^{lakhs over subsequentyears' as documentedthrough several} sanction^{letters and agreements'with the overall sanctioned facilities'} The overall^{credit facilities were convertedinto cash creditfacility of} Rs.55 lakhs^{and furtherenhancedto Rs'85 lakhs vide sanctionletter} dated^{11.01.2019.Each renewal or enhancementwas accompanied} by new^{undertakings, indemnities, and required ttff)'.d#uments}

¶18

.''-i6'rtr*

¶19

oA,Ll2l2023

¶20

and title deliveries by the defendants. The applicant bank also sanctioned Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) of Rs.21 lakhs vide sanction letter dated L7.OA.2O2O. In total the defendants availed credit facility of Rs.106 lakhs. Despite these enhancements/ Defendant No. 1 failed to adhere to the repayment schedule, leading to the classification of the account as a NonPerformlng Asset (NPA) per RBI guidelines. In view of the persistent defaults, the Applicant Bank has initiated recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to recover the outstanding sums from Defendant No. 1 and its guarantors on the basis of the executed loan, guarantee, and security documents. The defendants executed letter of acknowledgement of debt dated 01.11.2021 and loan recall notice was issued on 74.Ll.2022 calling upon defendants to repay the entire outstanding amount. As they failed to clear the outstanding amount, this OA is filed.

¶21

The defendant No.2 filed the Written Statement which has been adopted by defendant no. 1 and 3 to 5. The defendants do not deny of OA averments including availment of loan facilities and execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage over OA schedule properties in favour of the applicant bank. Defendants denied that applicant bank informed the NPA classification and their acknowledgement of the same. Also defendants^claim that the^entire pending loan has been settled with the applicant bank. The cause of action does not arise and hence OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Applicant Bank examined t\4r. Srikanth Sukhavasi, Senior Manager as AW-1 and marked 100 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.100. fr,oe

¶23

oa.LL2l2023

¶24

In order^{to substantiatetheir defence'D2 filed evidence} affidavit^{which was adopted by defendantno 1 & 3 to 5 and marked} no documents.

¶25

Heard the^{Learned counselfor the applicant bank Defendant's} right of arguments^{was forfeitedon 11 08'2025 after affording} sufficient opportunity.^{Perused the materialplaced on record'}

¶26

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-}

¶27

Whether the^{Applicant Bankis entitled} for the OA claim^{againstthe Defendants} and OA schedule^assets?

¶28

According to^{learned counselappearingfor the applicant bank,} defendants^{having availedthe credit facititiesfailed to discharge the} liability in spite of^{repeated requests. ExhibitsA.1 to A 100 marked} through Aw-1 amPly^{prove that the defendants availed housingloan} against hypothecation/mortgage^{of OA schedule properties and} personal guarantees, but^failed to^{repaythe same The outstanding} amount claimed by^{the bank is Rs.1,06,46,766,93ps/-ps The} defendants contested^{the OA by filing writtenstatement.Thoughthey} denied the entire^{avermentsin the OA, the defendantshavenot} chosen to mark^{anydocumentsto substantiatetheir pleasnorhave} they chosen to^{cross-examine AW-1to disprove the authenticity of} Exs.A.1 to A.100^{materialpapers reliedon by the ApplicantBank It} is settled law that any amount of^{pleadings without sufficient} evidence or rebuttal^{evidence is ofno avail. Undersuch} circumstances, the^{evldence of AW-1 coupledwithrecitalsin Exs.A.1} to A.1Oo remains unchallenged^{and un-rebutted and accordinglyOA} deserves to be allowed holding^{that defendants are jointly and} severally liable to^pay the^{balanceoAflaim with futureinterestand} costs. f*-t"

f*-t"

oa.L1212023

In the result, the present Original Application No.11212023 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 7,06,46,766.93ps/- ps. with future interest rate @12olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation/mortgage of assets described in the schedules annexed to the OA and applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for realization of its dues; and

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entltled for the costs.

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

!2. Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concerned and} upload in Web Portal.

¶40

(Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by^{me in the} open court on this the^{3oth day} of October,²⁰²⁵⁾

¶41

fr.KlF5

¶42

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Sri Laxmi Fertilizers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sri Laxmi Fertilizers

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

Ms SIta Trading versus Union Bank of India

Kapeeshwar Roto Packaging Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank versus Mr. K Manohar

Bank of Baroda versus Dasari Janardhana

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad

V Kondal Raj versus Union Bank of India