The DRT allowed an OA filed by UCO Bank for recovery of dues from a partnership firm and its individual guarantors. The Tribunal rejected the defendants' challenge regarding suppressed facts and excess interest, noting their failure to adduce evidence.
Defendants liable to pay dues; sale of OA schedule assets authorized; Issue Recovery Certificate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE THIRD DAY OF )ULY, 2025
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 731 OF 2023
UCO Bank Mid Corporate Branch D.O. B-2-418 Krishnama House RoadNo.4&7 Banjara Hills Hydera bad - 500034. Rep by Chief Manager.
.......Applicant.
Versus
Sri Samarth Goel i) S/o Sri Sanjay Goel Smt. Sushmitha Goel ii) W/o Sri Sanjay Goel
Regd. Office, 4-3-71/A Opp: YES Bank, R.P. Road Secu ndera bad- 500003. Telangana State.
Also at: D. No. 7-107, Sy. No. 122 Kondamadugu Village B B Nagar Mandal Yadadri-Bhongir Dist.50B 126, T.S.
Also at: Plot No.69, D.No. 5-22-91 Shantiniketan Colony Mahendra Hills East Maredpally, Secunderabad-26. Atwz.9 ,'5o'-
oA.73712023
..... Defendants.
Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. A. Nandini Reddy. Counsel for Defendants : Mr. E. Praveen.
:: ORDER::
l/'ot
oA.73112023
by 1" defendant. The partners of defendant No.1 created exclusive charge over the building including plinth and foundation, hypothecation of all plant and machinery and furniture, fixtures and fittings purchased out of the term loan and the entire stocks of inventory, receivables, book debts and other chargeable assets besides liquid collateral fixed deposit receipt of Rs.30 lakhs. Photostat copies of demand promissory note, letter of continuity, letter of waiver, composite deed of hypothecation, letter of guarantee, term loan agreement all dated 02.08.2019 executed by the defendants are annexed to the OA. Defendant No. 1 represented by its partners availed additional working capital term loan of Rs.29,00,000/- under Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line vide sanction letter dated 05.06.2020, This loan is secured by exclusive charge by hypothecation of entire stocks, recoverable, ills and other chargeable assets of 1st defendant firm and extended personal guarantees of 2nd defendant and Akarsh lalan. The term loan and cash credit limits were renewed by letter dated 29.01-202t. The defendant No.1, represented by its partners, defendant No.2 and Akarsh Jalan, the guarantors, have executed necessary documents for the renewed facilities. The partnership deed of the defendant No.1 was reconstituted on L7.03.2021. All the three loans were renewed in favour of defendant No.1 with similar terms and conditions by a fresh sanction/renewal letter dated 20.07.2022. The securities created earlier were extended for the fresh sanction/renewal dated 20.07.2022 as described in OA schedule A, B and C assets. Defendants have made some part payment of Rs.90,500/- on 30.12.2022 in GECL account towards Additional Working Capital Term Loan faciljgl sanctioned on 05.06.2020. ow*
oA.73tl2023
Further defendants2 and 3 guarantorshave executed fresh loan documents on20.10.2022 towards Term Loan and Cash credit accountsin addition deposits into the said loan accounts on 20.07.2021 and28.09.2021. Thus it is construed that the debts are within theknowledge of the defendants 1 to 3' Despitegranting relief during Covid.19 Pandemicin the form of Additional WorkingCapital TermLoan on 05'06'2020under GRCL, defendantsdefaulted and failed to regularise and pay the EMIs leading toclassification ofaccounts as N PA on 24.05.2023. Since thedefendants were unresponsivein regularising andpaying the outstandingdues, applicantbank issued recall noticedated 25.05.2023and legal notice dated 1g.06.2023. However,defendants acknowledgedthe debts and Securities vide letterdated 14.07,2023. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances,defendants 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable todischargethe liability'
s
o A.737/2023
Whether the Appticant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and the OA schedule assers as prayed foruTwg
oA.7lrl2o2!
5
o Admittedlydefendants availed loan facilities from the applicant bank.A perusal of materialplacedon recordshows that defendantNo'1 took the premisesof a runningUnit belongingto oneM/s. Kwality Doors alongwith all plant and machinery' land andbuildingon rent und"r-ununregistered RentalAgreement dated25'04'2019 for running the under its name and style i'e'' M/s.D'A'F' Industries initially for a period of threeyears and subsequentlyextended it for another period of two years i'e'' for aperiod of fW" years w'e'f' O1'05'2019'Inthe supplementarylease dated 26'07'2019'the 1st defendant was allowedto construct IsneO of about 7000 sq'ft'' at its own cost.By a[ meansthe rentar premises pressedinto service has notlegalsanctity in the eye of law' In spite of such invalid instrument,applicant bank averred in para 3 of OA' the defendantscreated exctusive chargeon the "Buildingincluding Plinthand Foundation" and "hypothecationofPlant & Machinery"purchasedout of the term loan and the entirestocks of inventoryetc'' neing the security for the loans availedfrom applicantOunn'oppi'tunt bank prayer includes sale of Building includingptintn anO Foundation' hypothecation of Plant & Machinerypurchasedout of the term loan and the entire stocks of inventory,furnitureand fixture/fittings etc., .'o:'.1: o:::: up shownin OA schedules A' B and C respectively'However' the OAschedules do not show the exact nomenclatureof hypothecatedplant and machinery and the measurements of the structurein respect of building'plinth and foundations of lyingin the leased premisesthat have been purchasedor constructedfrom out of the loan amounts'It is not of place to - dJ-rrr .rsrv!i'- mentionhere thatas on date**,**the tenure of lease stood expired
u#ro
oA.737/2023
by 3I.04.20L9. However, 2nd defendant Samarth Goel, representing the lst defendant firm as a Managing partner of the firm was a party to the unregistered Rental Agreement. But the Lessor has not been arrayed as a party defendant to the OA proceedings. In their written statement, while admitting the OA averments partry (without any eraboration), defendants have not contested or disputed the prayer relating to sale of OA schedule assets which inter alia includes building, plinth and foundations in the leased premises. However, the applicant bank pressed the unregistered rental agreement dated 01.05.2019 into service for sale of OA schedule A & B assets lying in the leased premises for the purpose of recovery of its dues. Whereas, defendants disputed the OA claim on the ground of incrusion of interest and penarties but not the rentar agreement dated 01.05.2019 for sale of OA schedule assets. Defendants have not come up with any material evidence in support of their contention as excess interest or penalties allegedly charged to the loan accounts. It is the setfled law that mere pleadings without supporting evidence is of no help. Defendants choose to neither adduce evidence nor cross examine AW.1 either on the authenticity of the documents placed at Ex.A.1 to A.33 or the signatures appearing on the same. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitars in Exs. A.1 to A.33 marked on beharf of the Applicant Bank, clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.
oA.73tlz07t
8
13.Communicate a copy of this order to the partiesconcernedand uploadin Web Site'
by mein the open court on this the (Dictated to the steno'signed and pronounced i'd dayof lulY, 2025) r0"
r0"
ffiio *o-rtl IDINGOFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to the OA claim against the Defendants and sale of OA schedule assets.
Whether the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim with future interest and costs.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
UCO Bank Mid Corporate Branch
M/s. DAF Industries
Sri Samarth Goel
Smt. Sushmitha Goel
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
