Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. M/s. Elan Agrochem Private Limited

DRT10 Oct 2025OA/738/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery application. The court rejected the defense of parallel proceedings under RD(B) and SARFAESI acts and dismissed the claim of no cause of action despite subsequent payments. The bank was ordered to recover the claimed amount.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay balance dues of Rs.11,39,16,272.52 less paid amounts, with future interest and costs.

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus M/s. Elan Agrochem Private Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF OCTOBER,2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 738 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, Department For Special Operations H.No. 6-3-246 & 6-3-244/4, 3'd Floor, Desk No. 0796, Roxana Palladium, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Mr. Srikanth Sukjavasi S/o. Late Venkata Narayana, Age:^j8 Years

¶7

........Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

M/s. Elan Agrochem Private Limited Rep. by its Director

¶10

Mr. Erkulla Bala Koteswar Rao,

¶11

RS. /VO: B-a, Door No. 6-70, Tunikipadu Road, Atukuru Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District Telangana -507203.

¶12

Mr. Erukulla Laxmi Narasimha Rao S/o Eru kul la Cha nd ra ia h, Age: 79 years, Occ: Business, H No: 1-909, Road No: 4, Sundaraiah Nagar, Wyra Road Madhira, Kha m ma m-507203, Tela nga na.

¶13

Mr. Erkulla Bala Koteswar Rao S/o Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, H No: 1-909/1, Road No: 4,

¶14

7fu,..y,z,..t-%

¶15

17 "rs'*

¶16

¶17

OA,No.738/2022

¶18

Sundaraiah Nagar, Wyra Road Madhira, Kham ma m- 507203 Tela nga na.

¶19

Mr. Erkulla Anantha Lakshmi W/o Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Age: 73 years, Occ: Business, H No: 1-909, Road No: 4, Sundaraiah Nagar, Wyra Road Madhira, Kha m m a m - 50 7 2 03 Tela n ga n a.

¶20

Mr. Erkulla Sridevi W/o Bala Koteswar Rao, Age: 51 years, Occ: Business, H No: 1-909/1, Road No: 4, Sundaraiah Nagar, Wyra Road Madhira, Khammam-507203 Telangana.

¶21

...... Defendants.

¶22

Counsel for the Applicant : Mrs. M.V. Kini. Counsel for Defendants : Mr. V.V. Sharath.

¶23

-:0_E_91_B:-

¶24

The applicant filed the present Original Application for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,39,16,272.52ps from the Defendants^jointly and severally with costs and future interest @18yo p.a. from the date of Application till the date of realization and for sale of OA schedule assets.

¶25

The case of applicant bank, in brief, is that the Defendant no.1 is a company and defendants 2 to 5 are the Directors. Defendant no.1 represented by its Managing Director Defendant No.3, availed cash credit facility of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and ABC Term Loan facility of Ri.22,75,0OO/- initially vide sanction letter /fi\rrg/,i.fo

¶26

:_/

¶27

oa.No.738/2o22

¶28

dated 28.10.2015. Defendants created equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds of their respective properties and executing Memorandum Recording Past Transactions of Creation of Mortgage as a security for the overall loan facilities of Rs.5,22,75,000/-. The loan facilitles were renewed on 11.08.2016. Thereafter, Defendant company availed a fresh term loan of Rs.1,95,00,000/- under sanction letter dated 26.10.2078, followed by enhanced cash credit to Rs.7,00,00,000/- and seasonal cash credit to Rs,1,00,00,000/vide sanction letter dated 77.12.2018 and thereafter to Rs.8,00,00,000/- and Rs.1,95,65,000/- on 10.11.2020. Defendants extended the existing mortgages to the renewed/ fresh limits of Rs.9,95,65,000/- and Rs.1,95,65,000/. However, defendants committed breach in repayment of loan amounts. The applicant bank informed the defendants that their loan was declared as NPA on 30.04.2022. Defendants did not choose to regularise the loan accounts despite several requests and demands. Therefore, applicant was constrained to file this application for recovery of Rs.11,39,16,272.52ps due from the defendants.

¶29

Defendant No.1 filed Wrltten Statement and defendants 2 to 5 adopted the same. Applicant bank is pursuing parallel proceedings - one by filing the present OA and the other under the SARFAESI Act. As such, both proceedings are not sustainable under law. The OA has been filed without providing proper opportunity to the defendants. Defendants have recently paid certain amounts which would demonstrate that the loan account is in operation and no cause arises for filinq the Presenpresent """ffi';J)ins

¶30

OA.No,738/2022

¶31

OA. Since the OA has been filed prematurely, the same is tiable to dismissed.

¶32

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined Srikanth Sukhavasi, Senior tvtanager of Applicant Bank, as AW_1 and marked 79 documents through him as Exhibits A_1to A-79.

¶33

Applicant bank filed part satisfaction memo on L2-OB.2O2S for an amount of Rs.3,01,35,000/-.

¶34

In order to substantiate their defence, E. Bala Koteswar Rao, Defendant No.3 filed evidence affidavit as DW.1 and marked no documents.

¶35

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for defendant prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the material placed on record.

¶36

B. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:-

¶37

Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim against the Defendants and the OA schedule property as prayed?

¶38

Point No,(i ):-

¶39

According to learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank, defendants having availed various credit facilities, but failed to discharge the liability in spite of repeated requests. Exhibits A.1 to A.79 marked through AW-1 amply prove that the defendants availed Cash credit facility but failed to repay the same. The outstanding amount due from the defendarts works out to Rs.13,38,58,116.65ps as on 72.08.2025 (ru,-

¶40

OA.No.738/2022

¶41

The principal contention of the defendants is that initiation of parallel proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is not sustainable. The other contention is that in the post OA proceedings, defendants paid some amounts and hence the account is in operation and hence no cause of action arises for initiation of recovery proceedings. However, these two contentions are not valid as there is no bar for initiation of parallel proceedings under both the Acts mentioned supra. Similarly, since the deposits reportedly made by the defendants are after filing of the present OA, after classifying the loan account as NPA, applicant bank cannot be found fault on this score. Under these circumstances, the evidence of AW-1 coupled with recitals in Exs.A.1 to A.79 remains unchallenged and un-rebutted and accordingly OA deserves to be allowed holding that defendants 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the balance OA claim with future interest and costs.

¶42

Point No,(ii):-

¶43

In the result, the present Original Application No. 738/2022 is allowed with costs, as under:-

¶44

i) the defendants 1 to 5 are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.11,39,16,272.52ps tess Rs.3,01,35,000/- paid by the defendants between Decembet 2024 and June 2025, with future interest @10.95% p.a. simple, from the date orlAppticatjon ti the date of rearization; (/W..

¶45

OA.No.738/2022

¶46

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage/ hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its balance dues;

¶47

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realisation of its balance dues; and

¶48

iv) the applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶49

t2. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of this Order.

¶50

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Web Portal.

¶52

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1O'n day of October,2025).

¶53

ffi.ru'e ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. M/s. Elan Agrochem Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. M/s. Elan Agrochem Private Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Mr. Pokuri Venkateshwar Rao

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sri Sai Star Cable Network

B Shylender Kumar versus Repco Bank

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Thellajeera Divakar, S/O Chandraiah

The Hongkong and Shanghal Banking versus Mr. Shaik Basheed, S/O Late Ibraheem

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Banda Shravan Kumar