Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Ariston Pharma Nova Tech Pvt. Ltd.

DRT30 Apr 2025OA/396/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank seeking recovery of dues from a company and its directors after the evidence remained unchallenged due to the respondents' forfeited right to file written statement and contest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 ordered to pay Rs.4,96,30,757.62 with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate directed to be issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Ariston Pharma Nova Tech Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINALAPPLICATIoN No. 395 oF 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank Madhapur Branch Hyderabad Rep by its Authorised Manager.

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. Ariston^pharma Nova Tech^pvt. Ltd. Rep by Vedprakash Vyas S/o Biharital Vyas (Director) Regd. Omce, 5-5-35/1368 Prashanth Nagar IDA Kukatpa[y Hyderabad-500 072.

¶9

Vedprakash Vyas s/o Biharilal vyas Director of M,/s. AristonPharma Nova Tech^pvt. Ltd. Aged 60 years, Occ: Business H. No. 2-23-J-299 Jalavayu Vihar, Kukatpally Hyderabad-500072.

¶10

Smt. Jyothi Vyas (Director) Wo^Vedprakash Vyas Aged: 54 years, Occ: Business H. No. 2-23-J-299 Jalavayu Vihar, Kukatpally Hyderabad-500072. ..... Defendants.

¶11

ffisse

¶12

0A.39612022

¶13

counsel for Applicant Dr. Shaik Faheemullah Mohd Asifuddin.

¶14

Defendants 1 & 3 , : No representation. Defendant No.2 :Exparte.

¶15

:: ORDER ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^recovery of^a sum of Rs.4,91,56,868.18Ps towards SOO^account, Rs.4,72,882,44Ps towards Term Loan account^{and Rs.7/-} towards current account from the defendants^{with future} 01.06.2022, 06.05.2022 and 01.06.2022^{respectivelytill the} date of realisation alonq with costs.

¶17

The averments of applicant bank as^per the OA, briefly,^are that defendant No.1 initially availed SOD for an amount of^Rs.250 lakhs vide sanction lettered ted 09.06.2016. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 got the SOD limits enhanced to Rs.500 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 03.05.2018. Defendant No.1 also availed LC of Rs.100 lakhs on 03.05.2018. Defendant No.1 availed Vehicle Loan (Term Loan) of Rs.9.4 lakhs. Defendants 2 and 3 being the Directors of the defendant No.1 Company, executed all the requisite loan documents. The secured assets against the loans have been disposed of under the SARFAESI proceedings and the sale has been registered in favour of the successful bidder on LL.04.2022. As the defendants failed to regularise the loan accounts, present OA is filed against the defendants for recovery of dues outstandins - dues. ) i r\.!^h-"1($

¶18

oA.39612022

¶19

Defendants 1 and 3 entered appearance through Advocate, Mr. D. Bhanu Pratap, but did not choose to file written statement. Defendants right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated L4.L2.202,3.

¶20

Defendant No.2 was set exparte vide docket order dated 07.77.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

Applicant Bank examined D. Lingeshwar, Manager as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.19.

¶22

Contesting deFendants right to adduce evidence was forfeited on 11.03.2025.

¶23

Right of arguments of both sicies was forfeited vide docket order dated 09.04.2025. Perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The polnt that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants?

¶26

As stated supra, while defendant No.2 remained exparte, the other two defendants did not choose to pursue the case right from the stage of Rling written statement to the stage of advancing arguments. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Amdavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.19 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted, Accordingly, applicant bank cinches claim against the Defendant-c. Hence. I hold that defendants 1to 3 are liable to pay the claim made by the Applicant Bank in the O.A. with future intejest and costs. 7fua-^'t-\

(//^''tr"

oA.t96l2022

In the result, the^present Original Application^{No.396/2022is} allowed as under:^-

¶31

i) defendants 1 to 3 are liable to^pay a sum of Rs.4,91,56,868.18Ps towards SOD account, Rs.4,72,882.44Ps towards Term Loan account and Rs.7/- towards current account totalling to Rs.4,96,30,757.62Ps to the applicant bank with future interest @10.75olo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

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

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

L2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Web Portal.

¶37

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30n day ofApril,2025).

¶38

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER 'f**

Canara Bank v. M/S. Ariston Pharma Nova Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Ariston Pharma Nova Tech Pvt. Ltd.

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

Sri Devineni Baswa Narendra Babu versus Union Bank of India

Venkat Ram Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Santosh Kumar Gumpanpally versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Vakkuntula Srikanth

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Annapanedi Ramanaiah

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Chimakurthi Nvdss Ram Kumar