Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Pranav Infra Projects

DRT7 Aug 2025OA/63/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of Maharashtra against three defendants for recovery of Rs. 6.81 crore principal, future interest, and costs after hearing the applicant's witness and finding the defendants liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 6.81 crore with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; issuance of recovery certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Pranav Infra Projects — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.63 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra, Corporate Finance branch, Near Bank street, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Pranav Infra Projects, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Narayana Darapuneni, Office address: Maple 0122 Rantree Park, Dwaraka Krishna Township, IJM NamburuPedakakani, Namburu, Guntur -522 508. Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

Mr. Narayana Darapuneni, s/o DarapuneniChennakesavulu, male, aged about 57 years, occ: business, Vempadu post & village, Varikuntapadumandal, Nellore dist - 524 227.

¶11

Mr. PavuluriSubrahmanyaSwamy s/o PavuluriVenkataSubbaiah, . ':

¶12

IJM NamburuPedakakani, Namburu, Guntur -522 5oB. 0 7 lrUC M AndhraPradesh'

Defendants

&r--d

(OA.63 of 202s)

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶19

Sri Momin Mohammed Rafiq Sri V. Santhosh

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6,81,91,521/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty one Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Five Hundred and twenty one only) with future interest @ 12.70o/o^p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ additional 2o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant no.1 is a Proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor/ defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 stood as^guarantor availed cash credit of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 2t.04.2022. To secure the due repayment of loan amount, the defendants executed demand promissory note, multi facility agreement, deed of hypothecation and consent letter dated 27.04.2022. On 19.11.2022, the cash credit facility was Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,00,000/- and the ry documents. Defendant no.3 ed properties and deposited the title

¶23

(OA.63 of 202s)

¶24

deeds in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued demand notice dated 26.06.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file Written statement.

¶26

Sri Rampalli Mahesh, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.24.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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?

¶29

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.24. In view of the above, I hold that the^Applicant Bank h ed their claim made in the OA against the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the interest and costs. i: . 07llICM r.. i^,'i .' \t-i a W,",,^p*sl

¶30

(0A.63 of 2o2s)

¶31

B. In the result, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.6,81,gL,szL/- (Rupees six crores Eighty one Lakhs Ninety one Thousand Five Hundred and twenty one only) with future interest @ L2.7oo/o p.a from date of filing of oA till the date of realization;

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶33

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶37

t4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on tlgjhf*4-gay of Aus, 2025)

¶39

%%
*
I 7 ftj0 2tp5

¶40

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND) TR,UE COPY PRESIDING OFFICER Assf. Rdgdtltrar L DRT4,, Hviif.e6.,ff .r,I

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Pranav Infra Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Pranav Infra Projects

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd Salahuddin Mukarram versus M/S Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/S. Boddam Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mrs. Thala Mamatha

State Bank of India versus M/S.Sree Sainath Engineerings Works

State Bank of India versus Sri. Akash Kumar Sonker

State Bank of India versus M/S. Claps Oil Tech Pvt. Ltd.