Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Sai Chaitanya Constructions

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/408/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for realization of a loan of Rs. 1.02 crore. The court held that defendants are jointly and severally liable for the dues and principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,02,23,337.36 with 18% interest; bank entitled to realize debt from hypothecated properties and assets of all defendants.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sai Chaitanya Constructions — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-T AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE ISTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.4O8 ot 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd, lavi1g^{its office at #5-9_22/A} & 5-9-22/8, 4th floor, Shapoorji Towers, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 063. Represented by its Authorised signatory

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Sai Chaitanya Constructions, lepfsented^{by its Managing pa.tne.} Mr. Pothugunta Srinivasulu, #L-L0L/8,^ptot no.56. Srinivasa Nilayam, Harsha chambers 5at nagar, Madhapur, KV Ranga Reddy district _ 5OO Og1.

¶8

Sri Pothugunta Srinivasulu, S/o Ramanaiah, aged about 49 years, ucc: business, r/o flat no.4o1, H. No.8-2-402 / A/ L/ L, Jyothi vista, Road no.5, Banjara Hilis, Hyderabad - 5OO 034.

¶9

Also at:at:

¶10

Also at:at: ;tructions,^{' :l;t'' t,B} #l-L01/8, plot no.56, Srinivasa i 't' 'l-";' , Nilayam, Harsha Chambers, ,k fr Sai.nagar, Madhapur, 1 fi^.r;:i. i, :, -' ':.:)=-..* K.V. Ranga Reddy Dist - 500 0BI; ;

¶11

(OA.No.4o8/20241

¶12

;

¶13

Mrs.^pothugunta Aruna, Wo Srinivasulu, aged about 34 years, Oc.c: b-usiness, r/o flat no.4OL, H. No.8-2-402 / A/ t/ L, Jyothi vista, Road no.5, Banjara Hilis, Hyderabad - 5OO 034.

¶14

Also at:

¶15

#.7-70t/9, plot no.56, Srinivasa Nilayam, Harsha Chambers, Sai nagar, Madhapur, K.V, Ranga Reddy Dist _ 500 081

¶16

Mr.^pothugunta Venkata Ramanaiah, s/o^{penchalanaidu,} aged aboutTi years, occ: business, R/o H.No.25-11-519, 5th cross road. Near Vinayaka temple, ruew lrlifitari' lolonV,^{Vedayapatem;--' ,} Nellore district _ 524 OO4. Defendants

¶17

Counselfor theparties:
Forthe Applicant	SriM.SrinivasReddy
Defendants	SriD.L.Kiranprakash
Orders reservedon	04.L2.202s
Pronouncedon	78.12.2025
Uploadedin websiteon	L8.12.2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Appt present OA against Defendants for Lt02,23pg7.36ps (Rupees One L*h",.iffg%p Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty

¶20

(oA.No.408l2024)

¶21

Seven and paise Thirty Six only) with future interest @ 1g% p.a with quarterry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization and in default for sale of hypothecated property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partners/ defendants 2 & 3 and defendant no.4 stood as guarantor avaired roan of Rs.2.00 crores (Rs.40.00 rakhs each of 5 different accounts) for purchase of construction equipment. The defendants hypothecated the movabres as mentioned in the schedure to oA. It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the DeFendants avaired the said loan facirities and faired to keep up the repayment schedure, as such the account was crassified as NpA on 06.07.2024. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the Appricant bank issued reca, notice dated 06.0g.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.1,O 2,23,337.36ps (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and paise Thirty Six only) with future interest @ 1go/o p'a with quarterry rests from date of apprication tilr the date of realization. Henee the OA.

¶23

The Defendant No.1 filed written state made in oA. rt i, srloriltjo oyin":i that the OA is barred ,,'-b.

¶24

(OA.No.408l202a)

¶25

by limitation and arso contended that the defendant no.1 has not signed any documents as craimed by Appricant bank. It is further submitted that the Appricant bank obtained signatures of defendants on blank printed forms without permitting the defendants to go through the contents therein. It is Further contencted that the defendants paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/_ + Rs.7,50,000/_ on 30.70.2024 and Rs.2.00 lakhs on 3O.LO.2OZ4. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶26

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

Heard the arguments.

¶28

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.i):

¶32

Ms. A.S. Adithya, Manager (legal) / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Appricant crearry deposed abdut the riabirity of the defendants, Exhibits A.1,tg A. 19 are\arked through AW.1. Defendant No.1 tf._a.s ow. rrfrr\ fited Exhibit B, 1.

¶33

;^{1B oEc am}

¶34

(oA.No.408/2024)

¶35

7' AW.l was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 1st defendant examined himserf as DW.1 and fired Exhibit B.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him, The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial prooF to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normar course of transaction. The defendants very vaguery contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are riabre to pay the oA craim. considering ail the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenabre. Hence the appricant bank is entitred to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶36

Point No.ii)

¶37

In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under;

¶38

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a tota 1,02,231337.36ps (Rupees One Crore Two nd Three Hundred Thirty Seven and interest @ 18% p.a from date of &,$ lM "

¶39

(oA.No.408 /2024)

¶40

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶41

property as mentioned in the OA towards realisation of the debt due;

¶42

10' The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶45

of receipt of order.

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

bv her, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶49

Ifl!...it"'iJ3 ["ri;l;.,T1;;!i".

¶50

sd/-

¶51

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDTNG OFFICER

¶52

180[czffi

¶53

TR,UE!OPY
Regist! lp>{
oRr-I, HYrr,qri

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Sai Chaitanya Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Sai Chaitanya Constructions

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anu Enterprises

Trinetra Jewellers versus Canara Bank

Pokkili Murali Kalyan versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Chandra Powerloom Industry

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shree Krishna Roadways

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Industries