Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Cepro Enterprises

DRT28 Aug 2025OA/234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application seeking recovery of Rs. 23.45 lakhs from three respondents jointly and severally liable. The tribunal rejected the claim against the 4th defendant due to lack of evidence regarding a mortgage document.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendants 1-3 to jointly and severally pay Rs. 23,45,079/- plus interest at 10.70% p.a. and costs. Applicant bank entitled to proceed against defendants' properties. Order recoverable agains

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Cepro Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS THE TWENTYEIGHTH^{DAYOF AUGUST, 2025} PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.}

¶2

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO. 234 OF 2024}

¶4

Punjab National Bank Circle SASTRA Hyderabad Plot No.3, Regency Plaza Maltrivihar Area,^Ameerpet Hyderabad-500038. Rep by its Chieflvlanager.

¶5

.. ...Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. CePro EnterPrises Rep by its Partners Plot No.89/8, Phase-I leedimetla, l"ledchal-

¶8

14alkajgiri, HYderabad-^{1 5.}

¶9

Mrs. Avulu Sridevi^Naidu W/o Balakrishna Naidu

¶10

H. No.8-1-1/4,^{PaPannaganPalll}

¶11

P. KothaPalli, Nambu^{laPUla kunta} PedaballikothaPalle,^AnanthaPUr Andhra Pradesh-515^521.

¶12

Mrs. Yarakaraju Sri^Lakshmi W/o Satyanarayana^Raju Flat No. 102, Surya^{Teja Towers} Plot No.1 and^{2, PraqathiNagar} Kukatpalli, BachaPalle-500090.

¶13

M/s. Cepro Building^{SystemsPvt. Ltd'} ReP bY its Authorised^Officer

¶14

H. tto. e-f-rSf/42/1^{(81 A), 1't Floor} Ananda Nilayam,^{Vengalrao Nagar Colony} Hyderabad-38. . Defendants'

¶15

Counsel forthe^{Applicant : Mr. N.V. Subba Raju'} Counsel for Defendants^{: Mr. L. chandralvlohan Reddy'} t,nrrr < r^I

-^{.t .</sup> ' Jri}

o4,234/2024

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,45,07A/_ from a the defendants along with further interest 6u19.79070 p.a. with monthry rests from 12.03.2024 ti, the date of rearisation arong with costs and sare of oA schedure hypothecated assets.

¶20

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that considering the request of the 1.t defendant, applicant bank sanctioned a cash credit facirity of Rs.2.50 crores and term roan of Rs.95.25 lakhs in 2019 and GEC loan of Rs.sO lakhs in 2020 for business purposes. Defendants 2 and 3 being the partners of 1st defendant and guarantors to the loan account executed necessary roan documents agreeing to the terms and conditions of the roan agreement. The oA schedure movabre assets of 1st defendant company have been hypothecated as a security towards the loans. The interest charged to the loan accounts are subject to revision and additional interest in case of default in repayment. Defendants roan amount as *. ;Ti::l.r-",::,1^,"i:li::"ff acknowledged the liability vide balance confirmation letters dated 18.05.202L and 29.04.2022. fhe loan account was classified as NpA on 29.07.2022 foltowed by SARFAESI proceedings by issuing demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 07.08.2022 and tegal notice dated 2B.tO,2O22.The immovabte property mortgaged by 4rh defendant has been disposed of under SARFAESI proceedi 9 on 28 03'2023' since the defendants faired to disch arge the CC accqg.nt tiabitity of ffiv'v

¶21

oa.234l2O2A

¶22

on 31.01.2024,^the Present^OA Rs.23,45,O7A/^{- outstanding as} is filed for recovery^{of the said} dues.

¶23

Defendants^{filed writtenstatementThe relevantsubmissionsof} defendants^{in brief are, the4th defendantdid not executeany} document^{either in respect of credit facilitiesor security interest} in favour of the^{applicant bank. Defendantsdeny execution of} loan documents^{mentioned in paras5(4) and 5(5) of the oA'} The OA claim is^{denied by the defendantsDefendantssigned} blank/^{printed loan documentsout of anxiety and urgency to} secure the^{loan approval. Therefore, documents signed by them} are not valid^{and admissibleunder law The defendantswere} regular in^{repayment and henceclasslficationof loan accountas} NPA is not in^{accordancewiththe guidelines prescribed for the} purpose. The statement^{of accountis incorrectand unreliable} as rate of^{interestcharged beinghigher' Defendants havenot} received any notice^{of change in interestof rates' Applicant} bank has no^{cause of action to file the present OA'}

¶24

The Applica^nt Bank examined^{Tawkeer Hasan, Manager (Law),} as AW-^{1 and} marked 14^{documents through him as Ex' A 1to} Ex. A.14.

¶25

The defendants'^{right of adducing evidencewas forfeited vide} docket order^{dated 24.06.2025.}

¶26

Heard learned^{counsel appearing for the applicant Defendants'} right to advance^{argumentswas forfeited vide docket order} dated 14.O7.2025.^{Perused the material placed on record'}

¶27

According to the^learned counsel for the^{aPplicantbank,an} amount of Rs.23,45,07A/^- remained unpaid by ffi**^{the d-efendants}

¶28

¶29

oa.23412l24

¶30

towards the CC loan account. It is an admitted fact that the defendants failed to disch. the dues claimed in the oA. Despite raising ,u.ior. utt",'9 defendants did not choose to pursue tne oa proceeoirlations' exa m i n i ns AW. 1 to ., r.,, #:."t';:: ::::#:1"J Tr:'.".,:"; the exhibits A.1 to A.14 produced by the appticant urpfy p.oru the oA claim. with these sL ror a owne the oA craim ;iHl::?;::;il:::11fl'f: against the defendants in the interest of justice.

¶31

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶32

for Whether the the Applicant oA ctaim Bank uguinrt is enti^-iil ed Defendants and the oA ,rnuiui hypothecated assets as prayed fo;,

¶33

It is an undisputed fact that the defendants availed credit facilities and committed default in clearing the dues pertaining to the Cash Credit account. Applicants availed cash credit limit to a tune of Rs.2.50 crores, term loan facility of Rs.95.25 lakhs in 2019 and GECL of Rs.sO takhs in 2020 for business purposes. As per the applicant bank,s or,r oA, the oA cra m perrains ," [ilT:::i j:.:ili."]H:':: against a total loan of Rs.2.50 crores availed in 2019, defendants cleared a major portion of the loan amount leaving a -

¶34

small amount of Rs.23,4S,O7A/-. Defendants raised vari s objections towards the docur crassirication, disputins,"," J"['".:]:T:H',:til ::l account etc. Defendants have not placed any material on record that they have ever taken up these issues before filing the written statement. Therefore, I am not convince_gl that these

,ft'.*"

oa.23412024

consideration for^the Purpose allegations^{need to be takenlnto} of adjudicating^the Present^{OA at} this^j uncture.

¶39

Defendants specifically^{disputed of executingany loan related} documents by^{4th defendant.Applicantbank has not disputed} this statement in^{theirEvidenceAffidavit Rled by AW 1} Applicant bank^{averredin para 10 (6) of the OA that defendant} No.4 as a^{securityfor due repayment of the loanswith interest'} costs expenses^{etc., created mortgageby deposit of original} sale deed bearing^{No.23595/2018dated 27 10 2018 of the} immovable^{property shown in Schedule"B" of the OA and the} appticant bank^{had drawn MoDT dated 04 01 2020' Thesaid} security lnterest^{wasreportedlysold underSARFAESI} Proceedings.^{However, neitherthe MODT copy is filed nor any} schedule has^{been given ln the OA towardsthe subject} immovable^{property. I have gone through the list of documents} annexed to^{the OA and the list of exhlbits annexedto the} evidence affidavit^{of AW.1.None of these documents relate to} the agreement^{if any executedby defendant No 4' Therefore'I} agree with the^{contention that the defendant No 4 hasnot} executed any^{loan relateddocument'However,it is made clear} that this finding^{has nothingto do with the MoDT if any} executed by the^{4th defendantand disposal of said property} under the^SARFAESI Proceedings'

¶40

Under such^{circumstances,the EvidenceAffidavlt of AW 1} coupled with the^{recitals in Exs A l to A'14 marked on behalfof} the applicant^{bankremainsunchallengedand unrebutted'} Hence, I^{hold that defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally} liable to^{pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bankwith future} interest and^costs.

¶41

¶42

oa,234/2024

¶43

In the result, the present Orjg inal Application No.234/2024 is

¶44

allowed as under: -

¶45

i) the deFendants 1to 3 are joinuy and severally liable to pay to tne apptiiant 6ant a sum of Rs.23,45,079/_ alonq with interest @10.70olo per annum simple fiom the date of application till the date of realjzatton;

¶46

ii) ll."^^.91-- -:|"'rn -^{is secured by way of} nypothecation of assets described in the :!1:.drr9 .^{annexed tothe oA} and the appticant bank is entiued to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶47

iii) !1:.appticant^{bankis atso entiued to proceed} against the person and properties of defendants 1 to 3 for realization oi it, Or".;'

¶48

iv) L9-^{o.d:f, i. passed against defendant} No.4 in vrew ot the observations made supra; and

¶49

v) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶50

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost I.4emo within 2 weeks

¶51

from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶52

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶53

15' Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and uptoad in Web Site.

¶54

(Dictated to the steno, signed and za,n oay oraugust,2oi!1"^" pronounced by me in the open court on this the

¶55

Pg+vre ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OTTTCEN

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Cepro Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Cepro 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

gattameni vijay srinanth versus Union Bank of India

Yele Mallesappa versus Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

Dudekula Raja Hussain versus Bank of India

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Supreme Batteries

Canara Bank versus Yammanuru Lakshmamma

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kaduru Sunil Kumar