Allowed

Bank of India v. Pruthvi Adithya Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

DRT17 Dec 2025OA/262/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT allowed an original application by Bank of India for recovery of outstanding loan amount and mortgage, finding applicants entitled after examination of their officer and forfeiture of respondent's right to file written statement.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; respondents to pay Rs. 6.33 Crores with agreed interest; recovery certificate issued; permission to sell mortgaged property and proceed against other properties.

Bank of India versus Pruthvi Adithya Infratech Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER,2025 PRESENT: SRt GUMMADI cOptCHAND, pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 262OF ZO2S

¶3

Between:

¶4

Bank of lndia, Adikmet Branch,

¶5

H.No.2-1-520, Vijaya Sri Sai Cetestia,

¶6

Opp. Vegetable Market,sankarmutt Road, Nallakunta, Hyderabad - SOO 044. Represented by its -

¶7

Constituted^power Of Attorney Holder

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Pruthvi Adithya lnfratech pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. N. Ram Govind Reddy,

¶11

H.No. 1 -2-234t 1 3t 1 3t C, Arvind Nagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad -^pincode _ SOO 029

¶12

Mr. N. Ram Govind Reddy, S/o N.C. Subba Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ : Business, R/o Villa No. 32 Survey No. 195 & 1gil1, CRPRK Plam Ridge Villas Masjid Banda, Bear Kondapur, Kondapur, K.V. Rangareddy, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 084

¶13

(OA. No.262l2}2sl

¶14

Mrs. N. Swarnalatha Wo Mr. N. Ram Govind Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ : Business, R/o Vitta No. 32 Survey No. 195 & 1 95/1 , CRPRK Ptam Ridge Viilas Masjid Banda, Bear Kondapur, Kondapur, K.V. Rangareddy, Hyderabad, Telangana _ 5OO 084

¶15

Mr. Mareddy Kesava Reddy, S/o. Late Maredy^yallareddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ : Business, R/o. Muntimadugu Village, Garladinne Mangal, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh -515774

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the parties :

¶18

For The Applicant For the Defendants No.1 to 3 For the Defendant No.4 Reserved on Pronounced on

¶19

Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao Exparte

¶20

T. Sridhar Reddy 16.12.2025 17.12.2025

17.12.2025

/ rrc ?lls

(oA. No.262/2o2sl

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6,33,20,62g.S4 ps. (Rupees Six Crores Thirty Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Eight and paise Fifty Four Only) i.e a sum of _

¶26

(i) Rs.6,19,16,716.09 ps. (Rupees six crores Nineteen Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen and Paise Nine Only) with future interest @ 13.52o/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @2% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶27

(ii) Rs.14,03,912.45 ps. (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twetve and paise Forty Five only) with future interest @ 1o.gs% p.a with monthry rests arong with penal interest @2% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶28

and in default for sale of Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedule to OA.

¶29

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Private Limited Company represented by its o. 2 and 3 and Defendant No. 4 is a k contended that Defendants 1 7 r)tL

¶30

(oA. No. 262l202s)

¶31

availed BG Limit of Rs.5.00 Crores together with interest @ 13.05% p.a with monthly rests and working Capital of Rs..1.00 Crores and executed Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dated 0A.02.2017 in favor of the Appticant Bank. The Defendants no. 2 to 4 stood as a Guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 09.02.2017 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 1 availed additional OD limit of Rs.1.00 Crores with interest @12j0% p.a with monthry rests and executed Supplemental Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dated 21.02.2018 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants no. 2 to 4 stood as a Guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 21.02.2018 in favor of the Appticant Bank. The Defendants avaired FrrL rimit of Rs.46.13 Lakhs with interest @8.85o/o^p.a with monthly rests and executed Supplemental Term Loan Agreement dated 29.06.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants no. 2 to 4 stood as a Guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 29.06.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendant no. 4 created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of rifle deeds dated 10.02.2017 and deposited Original Sale Deed in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants renewed the said credit facilities from time to time and executed necessary documents n favor of the Applicant bank. After availing the toan facitity, the defendants failed to comply sanction, hence the applicant bank NPA on 21.05.2025 and issued 1t \t-cwdated * .2025 under section 13(2) of the

¶32

(oA. No. 26212025)

¶33

SARFAESI Act, 2002, to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶34

Sri. T. Sridhar Reddy fired vakalat on beharf of Defendant No. 4. Even after the rapse of 4s Days ws of Defendant No.4 not fired and hence the right of filing of WS of Defendant No. 4 was forfeited on 05.12.2025. Defendants No. 1 to 3 cared absent and set exparte on 21.10.2025.

¶35

Sri. Manoj Kumar panda, Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A..1 to A.51.

¶36

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶37

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entiiled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶38

Defendant no. 4 did not file his WS even after availing sufficient time and hence the right of filing of WS of Defendant No. 4 was forfeited. Defendants No. 1 to 3 called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of was examined and he exhibited relevant to A.51. ln view of the above, I hold that the established their claim made in the OA * s/

¶39

(oA. No.262/2ozs)

¶40

against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶41

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶42

The Defendants No. 1 to 4 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of of Rs.6,33,20,62g.54 ps. (Rupees Six Crores Thirty Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Eight and paise Fifty Four Only) i.e a sum of -

¶43

(i) Rs.5,19,16,716.09 ps. (Rupees Six Crores Nineteen Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen and Paise Nine Only) with future interest @ 11.52% p.a from the date of this apptication till the date of realization.

¶44

(ii) Rs.14,03,912.45 ps. (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve and Paise Fofi Five Only) with future interest @ g.BS% p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶45

entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged in the Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

(oA. No.262/2o2sl

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 to 3 and properties of Defendant No. 1 company towards rearization of the debt due.

¶51

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶52

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

¶53

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶55

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed bv her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the^'l7h day of Dec, 2O2S)

¶56

sd/-
(c. GoPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

\y'ri)--
Peglstrar t
OiI.,', tTYDERABAD.

¶58

Bank of India v. Pruthvi Adithya Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Pruthvi Adithya Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Sri Sridevi Vignatha Granites

Ms Vamsi Furniture World versus State Bank of India

Sri Elapolu Vara Prasad versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anu Enterprises

Trinetra Jewellers versus Canara Bank

Pokkili Murali Kalyan versus State Bank of India