Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Stick Lables India Private Limited

DRT10 Dec 2025OA/127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Karur Vysya Bank against a borrower and its directors/guarantors for recovery of a defaulted loan facility. The bank was granted permission to proceed against mortgaged and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to pay Rs. 7,50,09,529.94 plus 16.10% monthly interest; permission to proceed against mortgaged property and assets of guarantors; issuance of recovery certificate.

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Stick Lables India Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE loth DAY OF^DECEMBE&2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.127 ot 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Assets Recovery Branch, D.No.5-8-356 to 362, 3'd floor, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Stick Labels India Pvt Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director Sri V. Shashi Kumar,

¶10

Sri V. Shashi Kumar, s/o Late V. Bala Brahmam, major, occ: business, managing director of M/s. Stick Labels India Private Ltd,

¶11

Both are R/o Plot no.19, CFA, IDA Nacharam, Ranagreddy - 500 076

¶12

Both are also at: Plot no.30B, Tech^park, IDA Nacharam, Ranga reddy - 500 076.

¶13

Smt V, Anantha Lakshmi, w/o Sri V. Shashi Kumar, major, occ: business,

¶14

D.2 and D.3 at: 10 0Ec tllfi H.No. 1 1-1-245, Mylargadda Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad - 76.

¶15

(oA.No.1271202s)

¶16

Sri P. Chandra Sekhar, s/o Sri P. Sree Ramulu, Major, occ: business, H.No.4-1-108/6, st.no.3, Bhavani nagar, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy - 500 076.

¶17

Sri V. Kiran Kumar, S/o Late V. Bala Brahmam, Major, occ: business, H.No. 1 1-1-1 1 1/A, Mylargada, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad - 500 002.

¶18

Sri V. Ravi Kumar, S/o Late V. Bala Brahmam, Major, occ: business, H.No. 1 1-1-246, Mylargada, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad - 500 002,

¶19

Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the Parties:

¶21

FortheApplicant	SriLankaJagannadham
FortheDefendants	SriHiteshPKumar
Reservedon	03.L2.2025
Pronounced on	t0.t2.2025
Uploadedin websiteon	10.r2.2025

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.7,50,O9,529.94ps (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs 'housand Five Hundred Twenty Nine and paise Nin bsequent interest @ 16.10olo p.a from the da te of realization and in default

¶24

(oA.No.127 /202s)

¶25

for sale of mortgaged property and Hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a Private Limited company represented by its Managing director/ 2^d defendant, defendants 3 & 4 are directors and defendants no. 2 to 6 stood as guarantors. The defendants availed OCC-fresh of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and machinery loan of Rs.1,35,00,000/- on 30.08.20t2. The defendants executed demand promissory note, undertaking to create equitable mortgage, deed of hypothecation of current assets etc in favour of applicant bank. The defendants 2,5 and 6 deposited the application schedute property and executed registered Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds in favour of Applicant bank. subsequenUy the credit facitity of Rs.1,50,0o,ooo/was enhanced to Rs.2.00 crores. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on 28.08.20L7 and issued demand notice dated Lg.og.zoL7. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.7r5o,o9,529.94ps (Rupees seven crores Fifty Lakhs Nine

¶27

Twenty Nine and paise Ninety four ryri .&bs nt e, su "ffi. p.a n ti{ $"dts,?#$ on. Hence the OA.

¶28

(oA.No.127l202s)

¶29

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants submitted that they paid a sum of Rs,10.00 lakhs under OTS agreement as initial installment but could not pay the balance amount due to liquidity crisis. It is fufther submitted that the alleged mortgage by defendants no.2,5 and 6 is invalid as the schedule property is joint family property and not individually owned. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶30

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri P.N.S.V. Chalapathi Rao, Senior Manager of Bank as AW.1 and through him marked 22 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.22. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert has chief Evidence. In spite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 23.09.2025.

¶31

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶32

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶33

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the,defendants ? ii) ro what - ' i retrffl D[[ ;];:5 E.r+ jt ,!:, *l:i." 1r. r '"r . , . ' 1" ' l :, . : . 1 ,....;", ..: ,.., i r t, .,

¶34

(oA.No.127lzozs)

¶35

Point No.i):

¶36

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the schedule property was not mortgaged in favour of Applicant bank.

¶37

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.22 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶38

Point No.ii)

¶39

In the result, the present Original application is ailowed with costs as under:

¶40

The Defendants are jointly and severalty liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of 9r529.94ps (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs sand five Hundred Twenty Nine and paise

¶41

(oA.No.t27l2o25l

¶42

Ninety four only) with subsequent interest @ 16.10o/o p.a from the date of application till the date of realization.

¶43

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 6 and properties of defendant no.1 Company towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

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

¶46

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶47

L2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10h day of Dec,2025)

¶50

ffiu*i
I ro D€cm

¶51

sdl-

¶52

(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
DRT-tr, HyDEii.t S.t1D. <P-

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Stick Lables India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Stick Lables India Private Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Pokkula Sandhya

Sri Venkata Sai Traders and Another versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S. Koolsafe Global

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dudipala Groups

Smt Sangeeta Agarwal versus the Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Mr Paravelli Rajesh versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited