Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises

DRT23 Oct 2025OA/214/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for debt recovery of Rs. 28 lakhs against a corporate entity and its proprietor. The bank proved loan defaults via documentary evidence, while the defendants failed to substantiate their defenses with cross-examination or contrary material.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 28,56,918 with interest at 8.65% p.a. simple; claim secured by hypothecated machinery; bank entitled to proceed against person and properties for realization.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Yashomedha… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.214 OF 2022

¶4

Indian Overseas Bank Secunderabad Branch Legend Crystal Building P.G. Road, Secunderabad Rep by its Asst. General Manager.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Yashomedha Enterprises Rep by is Proprietor Sri P.V.S.S. Somayajulu S/o Srinivasa Rao G-3, Balaji Residency Road No.18, P.S. Rao Nagar Dommaiguda, Nagaram Scunderabad-500 083 Telanga na State,

¶7

Sri P.V.S.S. Somayajulu S/o Srinivasa Rao G-3, Balaji Residency Road No.18, P.S. Rao Nagar Dommaiguda, Naga ra m Scundera bad-500 083 Telangana State.

¶8

..... Defenda nts.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Gampa Rangaiah Counsel for the Defendants : M/s.^{B. Mohan.}

¶10

:: ORDER::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s 19 of^{The Recovery} of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for^{recoveryof a} total^sumof Rs.28,56,918/- from the defendant!- with future^interest .,atnq-:.. r-<. ,/'1-}.*

¶12

oA.214t2022

¶13

¶14

@8.650lo per annum with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of reatisation along with costs and sale of hypothecated assets.

¶15

The averments of the OA, in brief, are; defendants availed a term loan of Rs.17 lakhs and cash credit facility of Rs.1O lakhs. To secure the repayment of Term Loan, defendant executed the requisite loan documents. In terms of the loan agreements, the defendants are entitled to draw the amount within the limit and interest on principal amounts so drawn becomes due at the end of every month. If the said interest is not paid, the said amount gets merged with the outstanding amount due by the end of the month. Defendants have not paid the monthly interest on the principal amounts. Therefore, defendants committed default in repayment in spite of several demands. Hence the present oA.

¶16

Defendants filed written statement. The averments of the written statement in brief, are; applicant bank recalled the credit limits unilaterally and arbitrarily vide letter dated 2I.O8.2021 on the grounds of non-submission of Tax Invoice Delivery Challan, installation certificate of machinery, quotation submitted for granting of loan being fabricated, irregularity in operations of OCC account and submission of stock statements and turnover not being commensurate with the sanctioned limit. The term loan of Rs.16.70 was direcUy paid by the applicant to the suppliers of machinery. One Mrs. Nandini. officer of applicant bank inspected the unit on 27.07.2020. rhe machinery was installed by September, 2O2O and the Unit started functioning. After submission of the bills related to the machinery installed, applicant bank released Rs.10 lakhs for the /$,e,^,9 (.r/ -*"

¶17

oA.211t2022

¶18

working capital needs.^{Non-submissionof stock statementsin} was due to^lack of^{knowledge,but the same was madegood} subsequently. Despite^{submitting application for issuance of} debit card to enable^{the defendants to route business} operations through^{PhonePaylcooglePay,applicant bankhas} not issued the debit^{cardconstrainingthe defendant to route} the transactions through^{personalaccount in ICICI bank'} Defendant was denied of^{statementof account by saying that} account was NPA^{under fraud category. No amount was due ln} the Term Loan account^{at the end of MaY 2027 Applicantbank} has not addressed the^{issues raisedby defendants from time to} time. In view of the^{foregolng reasons, defendantspray for} dismissal of the OA.

¶19

In order to^{prove its claim, the Applicant Bank examined} K. Srikanta Chakrabarti,^{SeniorlYanager, as AW-1 and marked} 72 documents through^{himas Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.12.}

¶20

In support of their defence,^{defendants examinedP.V.S.S.} Somayajulu, defendant No.2 as^{DW1, and marked2 documents} through him as Exhibits 8.1 and^8.2.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant^bank. Defendant's right of advancing oral arguments forfeited^for non- rep resentation. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank^{submits that} the defendants except raising bald allegations have^neither produced any material evidence nor chosen to contradict the AW.1 by way of cross examinatlon to disprove the^exhibits placed on record by the applicant bank. Hence, the applicant bank^proved that the defendants are^liable- to^pay the^{OA claim} M**

¶23

oA.2t4/2022

¶24

as prayed for. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA in favour of the applicant bank and against the defendants.

¶25

B. The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the OA claim against the Defendants and against the OA schedule assefs?

¶27

Despite raising multipre grievances, defendants did not choose to confront the AW.1 by way of cross examination to disprove the exhibits brought on record by the applicant bank. It is settled position of law that any amount of pleadings without supporting material evidence is of no avail. Under these circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.12 marked on behalf of the Appricant Bank, remains un-rebutted and unchallenged, Hence, I hold that defendants are liable to pay the oA claim to the Appricant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.2t4/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) defendants are liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.2g,56,918/_ along with interest @8.65010 per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of machin*bffeln the

¶31

oL.zl4t2022

¶32

schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

t2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcernedand} upload in Web Portal.

¶38

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23'd day of October, 2025.)

¶39

B(.**

¶40

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises

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 Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shravya Logistics

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Venkatesh Palwaya, S/O P Swarajyam

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Mohapatra Santhosh Kumar