Allowed

Idbi Bank v. M/S. Topaz Aerospace Technologies

DRT14 Jul 2025OA/450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed OA filed by IDBI Bank for recovery of outstanding debt. Court held bank established claim established. Excluding amount from one sold property, Defendants remain jointly and severally liable for balance and proceeds from remaining mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs 1,12,25,469.65 less Rs 55.44 lakh realized, with future interest. Entitlement to proceed against remaining mortgaged property and personal properties granted.

Idbi Bank versus M/S. Topaz Aerospace Technologies — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14rH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.45O ol2O24

Between:

IDBI Bank Ltd,

Mahavir House, Basheerbagh Square, Hyderabad - 500 029.TS Represented by its Authorised officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Topaz Aerospace Technologies, Plot no. 2C-16/A, IDA Phase-I, Sri Ram Nagar, Sanga Reddy, Patancheruvu, TS -502 319,

¶11

Smt N. Annapurna Devl, w/o Sri SimhachalamAlamanda, aged about 40 years, occ: business, Plot no.23, Road no.9, BSR colony, Phase-II, Patelguda, Ameenpur, Sangareddy, TS - 502 319.

¶12

Smt N. Phani, W/o Sri N. Venugopal Rao, Aged about 43 years, female, Occ: business, Flat no.E-406, Janapriya Lake Front Apartments, Sadhanavihar colony, Kapra, Secunderabad - 500 062.

¶13

lla Chandra Shekhar, aiah, aged about 51 years, iness, H.no.15-14/2, nagar, Medchal, - 501 401. 1^{[]NalF,fllsiri}

¶14

Defendants

¶15

(oA. No.4s012024)

¶16

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Smt P.S.S. Sujatha For the Defendants Exparte

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.L,L2,25,469.65ps (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Twenty Five thousand four hundred sixty nine and paise sixty five only) with further interest @ 10.650lo p.a from 02.11.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partners/ defendants 2 & 3 and defendants 2 to 4 are the personal guarantors for due repayment. The defendant no.1 availed cash credit of Rs.50 lakhs and term loan of Rs.142 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 23.03.2022. The defendants executed hypothecation cum loan agreement, common guarantee deed, demand promissory note and undertaking dated 24.03 .2022.^pursuant to sanction of credit no. & 4 created mortgage of schedule properties title deeds. After availing the loan facilities, the to comply the terms of sanction, hence the

¶20

ssified the account as NPA and recall notice was

¶21

(OA.No.4s0/2024)

¶22

issued on 18.05.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 24.04.2025.

¶24

Sri GedamGanesh, Asst General Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19. The applicant bank filed part satisfaction memo stating that schedule I item 1 property was sold under SARFAESI act and realized a sum of Rs.55,44,OOO/- on 26.tL.2024.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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

¶27

Defendants remainedexparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to A. 19. In view of the,al-ove, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim

¶28

OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank the ctaim made in the oA with ruture interest ffqfr;,m"ver f ,.fi;i'm i

¶29

(oA. No.4s0/2024)

¶30

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs,1,12,25,469.65ps (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Twenty Five thousand four hundred sixty nine and paise sixty five only) with further interest @ 10.650lo p.a from 02.11.2024 till the date of realization LESS a sum of Rs.55,44,OO0/-realised by sale of schedule property I item I of OA;

¶31

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property (item no.2) as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

certificate accordingly.

¶36

$
,\B

¶37

copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

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

¶39

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) yz/ PRESIDING OFFICER 1A

Idbi Bank v. M/S. Topaz Aerospace Technologies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. M/S. Topaz Aerospace Technologies

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. Sai Roshini Dendukuri

State Bank of India versus Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala

State Bank of India versus Mr. Konda Mahesh Kumar

Pushpa Trading versus State Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

Canara Bank versus Smt. Kethavath Saroja