Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Aindhri Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

DRT12 Sept 2025OA/71/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of loan facilities availed by M/s. Aindhri Innovations Pvt Ltd and its guarantors, directed joint and several payment of principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.2,56,41,722/- along with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and assets of respondents.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Aindhri Innovations Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12rH DAy OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.71 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra, Kachiguda branch, Hyderabad, TS.

¶7

Represented by its Chief manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Aindhri Innovations Pvt Ltd, Represented by its managing director Flat no.202, 2nd floor, JVS Hitex pride, Opp Shilpa Signature Hitex road, Shilap layout, green hamlet, Kothaguda, Hyderabad - 84.

¶11

ii) flat no.305, Aparna Green homes, Opp golf view apartments, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad - 32.

¶12

Sri MLN Pradeep, S/o Sri Subbaiah Naidu, Aged major, occ: business, LH 15, flat no.1601,

¶13

NR Lanco hills, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶14

Flat no.301, Lalitha castle, Near Bhavanipuram, Reliance fresh super Kondapr.ir, m^-,7t+.j,1' arke;r;::": Hyderabad - 520 012. /i.S *j li av,:t i,iir ilij rzsrr w

¶15

(oA.No.71l2023)

¶16

Sri M. Hanumantha Reddy, s/o Sri Satti Reddy, aged major, occ: business, H.No.3-63, STR: Vidhya Nagar colony, choutuppal Village and mandal, Nalgonda dist - 508 252.

¶17

Sri Katta Varra Laxmi, w/o Sri Gajender Rao, aged major, occ: business, Plot no.11, Aishwarya Estates, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur^mandal, Hyderabad - 500 055.

¶18

Raghavan Parthasarathy Srinivasa S/o Sri Parthasarathy, aged major, Occ:business, a fair view apartments, Road no.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad - 500 007. Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Parties:

¶20

For the Applicant Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee Defendants Sri G, Anand Kumar

¶21

Defendants

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶24

recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,56,47,722l- (Rupees Two Crores

¶25

Fifty Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and

¶26

Twenty Two o

¶27

a) A sum of interest @ 13.20% p.a with monthly rests of realization; ;^{1z sEp zrrs} ; W--W

¶28

(oA.No.7U2023)

¶29

b) A sum of Rs.32,82,060/- with interest @ LL.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from 07.0t.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶30

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶31

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants no.1 is a private limited company represented by its director/ defendant no.2 and defendants No.3 to 5 stood as guarantors availed cash credit of Rs.200.00 lakhs against hypothecation of charge on stock and book debts and mortgage of immovable properties more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendants executed demand promissory note, deed of hypothecation and guarantee agreements etc. Defendants 3 & 4 deposited their title deeds of schedule mentioned properties in favour of applicant bank. Again the defendants availed ECLGS scheme of Rs.40.00 lakhs against extension of hypothecation of entire assets. It is submitted by Applicant bank that the defendants paid repayments i.e., a payment of Rs.25,767/- on 06.06 .2O22and Rs.4,10,000/- on 28.03.2023. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants has availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account.lyagclagsified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by -': ''= :^</sup>

¶32

"r${;i regularized the account, and the dated 01.03.202t, but the "{ftx;u il an rrr,trn# #}L defendaf{B did tJt S6n dffirur"i,,[b r"puy the same. rhe totat claim ' * {;'1,. .t]:1"" ri ^r, ,s..,:?7 "'''*ft!1ifl Wr7

¶33

"*-.i=.=i::,xJ

¶34

(oA.No.7112023)

¶35

of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2r56,47,722/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Two only ) with further interest @ 13.20olo p.a and @11.25o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶36

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is admitted that the defendants availed the credit facilities and executed necessary documents but defaulted some installments due to outbreak of pandemic Covid. It is contended that the defendants were uneducated and not aware of the terms and conditions and signed on printed forms. It is contended the defendants filed SA. t6Ol2O24 and SA. t73/2024 before this tribunal raising the grounds of irregularities committed by applicant bank. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶37

The Defendant No.3 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is admitted that the defendants availed the credit facilities and executed necessary documents. It is contended that the mortgage and deed of hypothecation are forged and fabricated ones. It is submitted that the defendant filed 5A.332/2022 against the possession notice and paid a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs. dismissal of OA. Defendant no.3 examined h hibits 8.1 to 8.4.

¶38

(oA.No.71l2023)

¶39

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶40

Heard the arguments.

¶41

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶42

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶43

ii) To what relief ?

¶44

Point No.i):

¶45

sri Pravin Kumar Mahato, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liabitity of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.28 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants. Defendant no.3 examined himself as DW.1 and filed exhibits B.1 to B.4.

¶46

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.3 examined himself as DW.1, and filed exhibits B.1 to B.4, but his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant no.3 having taken the plea that they made some part payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents n_eebg:tne",4:'t L :r'.i iri' i. ,^:.r :_! i-l t'; bank makes clear that all the relevant nts aFpftxecuteE'b,y the defendants in the normal course of S f',.d,, ,S,tri'rl'i; "",: ;1ifi^{:;'i::i'"!+''f/'} ''+"nmt*,

¶47

(oA.No.71l2023)

¶48

made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is enti,ed to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶49

Point No.ii)

¶50

In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶51

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,56,41,722/_ (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Two only ) i.e.,

¶52

a) A sum of Rs.2,23,65,662/- with interest @ 13.20olo p.a from 07.01.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶53

b) A sum of Rs.32,82,060/- with interest @ 11.25olo p.a from 07.0L.2023 till the date of realization .

¶54

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables a properties as mentioned in the schedule to

¶55

OA tow debt due;

¶56

(oA.No.7L/20231

¶57

The Appricant bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant no.1 Company towards realization of the debt due.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

Issue.Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶61

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

¶62

Ifl$i:ii3 Tili;$T;rr$' bv her' corrected, sisned and pronounced bv me in the open court on

¶63

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

ffi
= rIi 12sE?M -"
-o ,si
,-.q
'':' '' 'i.- ,=+r:i*rtlj'
!.',1':':^'..!'"

¶65

TRUE GOPY
,*r,:W#ry

¶66

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Aindhri Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Aindhri Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Y.N. Motors

M S Vishal Agri Seeds versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Kannam Nagaraju versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Kapula Kanaparthy Farmers Services Co. Operative Society Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kanakadhara Designs (Opc) Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Araala Industries