Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Sree Krishna Tractors

DRT18 Oct 2025OA/403/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a significant loan default. The court found defendants liable based on unchallenged documentary evidence and admissions, awarding principal, interest, and enforcement rights against secured assets.

What did the court decide?

The defendants ordered to pay Rs. 1,99,42,669.22 with 12% p.a. interest; bank permitted to realize dues from hypothecated/mortgaged properties and personal assets of guarantors.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Sree Krishna… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17rH DAy OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.403 ot 2024

¶4

Between :

¶5

Punjab National Bank, Branch office at Circle SASTM office, 2nd floor, Maharshi House, road no.3, Banjara hills, Behind Chutneys restaurant, Hyderabad, TS. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

AND

¶8

M/s. Sree Krishna Tractors, Represented by its partners, 8-3-79I/744lD, Near water tank, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶9

Also at :

¶10

B-3-799/144/D, near water tank, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar,SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38.38. Telangana State.

¶11

Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar,SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38.38. Telangana State. Also at: 2-5-282/ 1, sy. No.203/3, Near Railway gate, Gadi Mohalla Zaheerabad town, Sanga reddy District, TS - 502 220.^,ffi 1 t ocr 7n15 t ocr 7n15 ocr 7n15 7n15 :ji i(;

¶12

1 t ocr 7n15 t ocr 7n15 ocr 7n15 7n15 :ji
i(;
,
,,

¶13

(OA.No.403 of 2024)

¶14

Also at:

¶15

H.No.2-1-329, Subhash ganj, Zaheerabad, fS - 502 220 2) Mrs. Kaza Madhuri, Wo^{Sri Kaza Venkata Satish,} Aged 49 years, occ: business, 8-3-t9l/ L44lD, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶16

Also at:

¶17

8-3-t99 / 144lD, Water tank, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶18

Miss Kaza Sri Harini, D/o Kaza Venkata Satish, Aged major, occ: business, B-3-L9L|L44/D, near water tank, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. TS.

¶19

Also at:

¶20

8-3- L99 / 144 / D, near water tank,Ven^ga lrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶21

Mrs. Kaza Laxmi Nancharamma, w/o Mr. Kaza Dhanannjaya Rao, aged major, occ: business, 8-3-L9L / L44lD, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶22

Also at :

¶23

8-3-799/144lD, Near water tank,^Vengalra Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶24

6o*\ B^17e$4nn : W**#

¶25

(OA.No.403 of 2024)

¶26

s) Mr. Kaza Venkata Satish, S/o Mr. Kaza Dhananjaya Rao, Aged major, occ: business, B-3- t91/ t44lD, VengaIrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶27

Also at :

¶28

8-3-199/t44lD, Near water tank, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶29

Mr. K.V. Sudheer, Legal heir of late Mr. kaza Dhananjaya Rao, Aged major, occ: business, B-3-79t/ L44lD, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶30

Also at :

¶31

8-3-799/144lD, Near water tank, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶32

Mr. K.V. Sunil Kumar Legal heir of late Mr. kaza Dhananjaya Rao, Aged major, occ; business, 8-3-L9I/ L44lD, Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. Telangana State.

¶33

Also at :

¶34

8-3-199/ t44lD, Near water Vengalrao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyd Defendants i/6 NP * Counsel for the For the Applicant .Kini For the Defendants No. Krishna Mohan Rao

¶35

(OA.No.403 of 2024)

¶36

Defendants no.1,3,6 & 7

¶37

Exparte

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,99,42,669.22ps (Rupees One Crore Ninety Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine and paise Twenty Two only) with future interest @ l2o/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2olo from 01.11.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶40

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partners/ defendants no.2 and 3 and defendants no. 2 to 5 stood as guarantors and defendants no. 4 to 7 are legal heirs of late Mr. Kaza Dhananjaya Rao. The defendants availed cc facility of Rs.300 lakhs and non fund based ILC of Rs.100.00 lakhs and hypothecated the movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA. Thereafter the limit was reduced from Rs.400.00 lakhs to Rs.205 lakhs. The defendant no.2 mortgaged the schedule property and deposited the tiile deeds in favour of applicant bank. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants h4ye'fraile;,the\Aid loan facilities and failed to keep a:"-^{::i-.- '._ 'l,C'tN</sup> un tne reoavr2fp*;;W .r rryk account was ctassified as NpA ii^t* qi5 a\ on 2e.08.2020or0 f'l$fgBJ5"*'fl?ated 23.t0.2024. rnspite of}

¶41

(OA.No.403 of 2024)

¶42

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.1,99,42,669.22ps (Rupees One Crore Ninety Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine and paise Twenty Two only) with future interest @ L2o/o p.a along with penal interest @ 2olo from the 01.11.2024 till the date of realization. Hence the oA.

¶43

The Defendants No.2,4 & 5 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. Defendants in their Written statement admitted about the availing of loan from the Applicant bank. Defendants no.2 averred that the OA is barred by limitation and the defendants paid a sum of Rs.44,000/- against loan account. It is denied that in compliance of terms stipulated in sanction letter defendant no.2 and late Mr. K. Dhananjaya Rao about the deposit of title deeds of respective schedule properties. It is further submitted that the defendants also kept a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs as FDR and the interest thus accrued was not done by the applicant bank. It is further submitted that the applicant filed SA.N.485/2024 before this Tribunal under section 17 of SARFAESI Act and obtained interim orders. It is submitted th t the defe plied the conditional orders by ( f. - {irl⁸ *l' paying a f Rs.2rffio la ce prayed for dismissal of OA. 1 7 0[T⁷⁰²⁵

¶44

(OA.No.403 of 2024)

¶45

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri S.K. Tawkeer Hasan, Manager of Bank as AW.1 and through him marked 14 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.14. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their beharf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. In spite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of firing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed.

¶46

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶47

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶48

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in oA against the defendants ?

¶49

ii) To what relief ?

¶50

Point No.i):

¶51

As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, the specific contention of the appricant bank is that the defendants No.1 to 7 availed loan initially to of Rs.205.00 lakhs and executed all necessary docu nt bank and defendants also created mortgagp of schedrlle me properties towards security of the loan amount. Thereafter the ants committed default. The

¶52

(OA.No.403 of 2024)

¶53

contesting defendants are not disputing the fact that they have availed cash credit loan from applicant bank and they also hypothecated the movables and created mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶54

On behalf of the Applicant bank AW.1 who is working as Manager is examined and exhibits A.1 to A.14 are filed. AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for contesting defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA. Moreover a perusal of the documents exhibited by the applicant makes clear that they are executed in the normal course of transaction. The defendants have not placed any material that they paid any amount other than the amount shown in the statement of account filed by the Applicant bank. So as per the statement of account filed by Applicant bank, the defendants are liable to pay the oA claim. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.l to A.14 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶55

Point No.ii) ,ri>" ,f,quit ,.,'- :.. u 7. In the t<fu prEr$l1t o pplication is allowed with costs as under: \

¶56

(OA.No.403 of 2024)

¶57

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,99,42,669.22ps (Rupees One Crore Ninety Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine and paise Twenty Two only) with future interest @ 12% p.a from 0L.11.2024 till the date of realization;

¶58

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

¶59

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 7 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶63

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶64

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶65

sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
tr'YW
8

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Sree Krishna Tractors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Sree Krishna Tractors

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

Ganneboina Vanitha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Smt Bompelly Karuna versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus M/S. R. S Filling Station

Canara Bank versus Sri. Rishikanth Varma

Om Sri Bhavani Industries versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Dugyala Venkat Rao versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.