Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/437/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Bank of India for recovery of a loan of Rs. 56,34,438.51 ps from M/s. Suvidha Petrochemicals and guarantors. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the dues with interest and costs, alongside a secured mortgage claim.

What did the court decide?

Direct relief: Defendants to pay Rs.56,34,438.51 ps plus interest and costs; claim secured by mortgage of schedule properties.

Bank of India versus M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE TWENryFIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), T4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 437 OF 2023

¶4

Bank of India Secunderabad Branch M.G. Road, Hyderabad Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

¶5

.......Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lvl/s. Suvidha Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its I\4anaglng Director Gadde Rajasekhar, H. No.1-8-861 Raj Villa,3'd Floor, Prakash Nagar Begumpet, Hyderabad-5000 16.

¶8

Also at:

¶9

lvl/s. Suvidha Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its lYanaging Director Gadde Rajasekha r H. No. 72-8-424/ 1-, 72-8-424/ A Ivlettuguda, Hydera bad- 17.

¶10

Sri Gadde Rajasekhar S/o Sri Gadde Raghavendra Rao Flat No. 305, Dattasai Apartments Enaadu Society, V.V. Naga r Kukatpally, Hyderabad-49

¶11

Smt. Kaza Saritha W/o Sri Gadde Raja Sekhar Flat No. 305, Dattasai Apartments Enaadu Society, V.V. Naga r Kukatpally, Hyderabad-49

¶12

Sri [4anchiraju Bhaskar N. Sreenivas W/o Sri M.V.G. Krishna Murthy

¶13

#89 & 90, 1't Floor, Balaji Enclave OldBowenpally,Secunderabad-sooo11. .....Defendants.

¶14

..ri^- ,cl rir'L' 'ib'

¶15

oA,437l202t

¶16

Counsel for the Applica nt Cou nsel for Defenda nts

¶17

: Mr. B. Ravindra Reddy. :Mr. D. Kiran.

¶18

:: qLLEE ::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.56,34,438.51Ps (Rs.26,29,105.15ps towards Term Loan Account and Rs.30,05,333.36Ps towards Cash Credit Account) jointly and severally from defendants with future interest @13.40olo and 12.90o/o per annum compounded at monthly rests respectively till the date of realisation along with costs and sale OA hypothecated and other properties of the defendants.

¶20

The averments of the OA, in brief, are; defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendants 2lo 4 are the guarantors to the loan. Defendant No.1 availed various types of credit facilities i.e., Rs.70,00,000/- and term loans of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively during the year 2014 from the applicant bank to meet its business requirements. Defendants executed the requlsite loan documents. Defendant No.2 created security interest over the OA schedule immovable property and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on 11.03.2015 by depositing the original title deeds of the property. However, defendants defaulted in repayment. The recall notice dated 04.03.2023 issued to the defendant has been returned unserved. The total dues outstanding as on 16.03.2023 stood at Rs.56,34,438.51Ps. Defendants did not respond to the request of applicant bank to pay overdue amount and regularise the account. Hence, the Or"r.t O2f,S$f

¶21

¶22

oa.437 /2023

¶23

Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement denying any default in repayment. The averments of the written statement in brief, are; applicant bank has not followed the rules in classifying the account as NpA, they were forced to give guarantee agreement, and that they have not received any legal notice. Appticant bank charged higher rate of interest which was not agreed by the defendants. Applicant bank used blank unfilled documents got signed without giving an opportunity to go through the contents. The statement of account is not correct and does not reflect the payments made by the defendants.

¶24

Defendant No.4 was set exparte vide docket order dated 22.03.2024 as he was called absent and no representation.

¶25

The Applicant Bank examined Nittala S.V.S.S. Sarma, Senior

¶26

l,lanager, as AW-1 and marked 23 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.23.

¶27

Defendant No.2 Managing Director of defendant No.1 examined herself as DW1, and marked no documents.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank. Defendants right of arguments forfeited vide docket order dated 75.07.2025 for non- representation. perused the material placed on record.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank submits that while defendant No.4 remained exparte, defendants 1to 3 admitted availment of loan facilities and mortgage of immovable property in the written statement filed by them, However, they raised false and baseless allegations to evade the liability. / ,tfur- I _,/ -\9'.""f t -./

¶30

oA,43712023

¶31

Except making false allegations and vague denials, they have not filed any document to substantiate the same. Thus, it is evident that they have no defence and the allegations are cooked up for the purpose of avoiding the liability. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA claim in favour of the applicant bank and against the defendants.

¶32

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶33

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the OA claim against the Defendants and against the OA schedule properties?

¶34

Despite raising various allegations and lapses against the applicant bank in the subject matter claim, defendants failed to adduce any evidence or confront applicant bank by way of cross examination of AW.1 to substantiate those allegations. Mere assertions without supporting meterial evidence bear no

¶35

significance. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.23 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. Hence, I hold that defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶36

In the result, the present Originat Application No.437 /2023 is allowed as under: -

¶37

i) defendants are joinHy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.56/34,438.51ps " (Rs.26,29,105. 1sps ptus Ovn*

¶38

oA.437 /2023

¶39

Rs.30,05,333.36ps) along with interest @L2o/o per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶40

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant is entitled to proceed against the same for realisation of its dues;

¶41

iii) the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; and iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web^portal.

¶45

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2Sth day of September, 2025.)

¶46

lr*tt-.^-rrrf /,/ (RAffESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

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

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. B Rajaiah

Kothamidde Venkataramana versus Hdfc Bank

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

State Bank of India versus Muneeswara Traders

Canara Bank versus Akshay Singh