Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. S S Engineering

DRT28 Aug 2025OA/854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by H DFC Bank Ltd. against three respondents for recovery of loan dues of Rs. 23,25,590.28 along with interest and costs, holding them jointly and severally liable for the credit facility

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 ordered to pay Rs. 23,25,590.28 with interest @ 9.53% p.a. simple from date of OA to date of realisation, along with costs; recovery warrant issued against hypothecated equipment and

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. S S Engineering — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

iN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL-iI AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST'2025} PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATION NO' 854 OF 2023}

¶3

Between:

¶4

H DFC BANK^Ltd. 1-10-60/3,3'd^Floor SuryodaYa^ComPlex Bequmpet,^{HYderabad-500016} i"i ovirc'll"'""eer-Legal. Applicant'

¶5

And

¶6

M/s. S.S.^Engineering Rep bY its^Proprietor Mr. Seelam^Madhubabu 5-46,^PeddaThanda Nea r RTC^{Colony, Khammam} Telangana state^{507 003.} 2. Mr. Seelam^MadhuBabu S/o Sriramulu Aged about⁴⁶ Years M/s. S.S.^Engineering H. No. 5-46,^lalagamNagar RTC ColonY,^PeddaThanda Khammam Dist.^{507 003} '

¶7

Mrs. Seelam^VijaYaLaxmi W/o Madhu^Bahu Aged about⁴⁴ Years Oic: Housewife,^{H. No 5-46,} lalaga m^{Nagar, RTc Colony,} Pedda Thanda kr'1i.ru.^Dist.507003. "^Defendants' Counsel for^{the Applicant : l'4r' M' Srinivas Reddy'} Counsel for Defendants^{: Mr' K Suresh'} 4yy.RLq -/^{'al'v "}

¶8

o{.8s4/2025

¶9

:: ORDER::

¶10

The Appticant Bank filed the or Debts & Bankruptcy ^.,:1Tl',:: :f#J::""-:il"] Rs.23,25,590.28ps joinuy and severally from all the defendants along with further interest @1golo p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of OA to the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule hypothecated equipment.

¶11

The averments of applicant bank briefly are, defendant No.1, the sole proprietor represented by defendant No.2 co_borrower and defendant No.3 guarantor availed commercial equipment loan from the applicant bank and hypothecated the same to the applicant bank. The loan was to be repayable in 47 EMIS with interest @ 9.53olo under loan agreement dated 24.03.2022. Defendants failed and neglected to repay the loan amount as agreed upon. Accordingly, the loan account became NpA. Applicant bank issued demand notice on 22,0g.2023. Defendants neither paid the dues nor gave a reply to the notice. Hence, the present OA.

¶12

Defendants 1 and 3 though entered appearance through counsel failed to file written statement, resulting in forfeiture of filing written statement vide docket order dated 72.09.2024.

¶13

Defendant No.2 filed wriu submissions in brier are, #J,J:::"TI: "ll";:;:J default in repayment. In fact, there was a delay in repayment of loan for a brief period due to business adversaries. Defendants took up the matter with the applicant bank for regularisation of the account as the arrangements for payment of dues were under way. However, applicant bank qlAssified the

¶14

oA.8s4/2023

¶15

Ioan account as NPA^{withoutany lntimation and without} honouring^{its offer for OTS. The legal notice daled 22 09'2023} did not specify^{the periodwithinwhichthe dues were called} upon to be^{paid.The OA claim is disputed for the reasonof} certain^payments made^{by the defendants were notbeing} credlted to the account.^{Applicationof interest on interest in} the name of monthly^{rests ls not acceptableApplicantbank} obtained signatures^{of the defendants on some blank stamp} papers, formats, documents and blank^{papers to be filled up} under intimation to^{the defendants. However, applicantbank} filled up those^{documents without intimatlon to utilisethe same} for filing the^{present OA. Documents filled up without the} consent of the defendants^{render invalid.Accordingly,} defendants^{prayed for dismissalof OA as the same is devoid of} merits.

¶16

l Applica nt Bank examined^{Mrs. SumayaShaik, Manager-Legal,} as AW-¹ and marked 7^{documentsthrough her as Ex A'1 to} Ex. A.7.

¶17

Defendants' right^{of adducing evidencewas forfeited vide} docket order^{dated 28.04.2025.}

¶18

Learned counsel^{appearing for the applicant, whilereportlng} there being^{no oral arguments from the bank's end' filed} written arguments.^{Defendants'right toadvance oral} arguments^{was forfeited vide docket order dated 07 'O7 '2025'} Perused the^{writtenargumentsfiled by the applicant bankand} the material Placed^{on record.}

¶19

,/'nh,,.c,

¶20

The^point that^{arises for considerationis:-} /)/'4t<"$''

¶21

¶22

oa,8s4/2024

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the OA claim against the Defendants and the OA schedute hyp_othecated equipment as prayed for?

¶24

Availment of loan and subsequent default in repayment is not disputed. Defendants raised various contentions like NpA classification during pendency of OTS negotiations, getting signatures on blank printed documents, credits to payments made etc. But they failed to follow it up by placing relevant material in support of their contentions. It is setued law that mere pleadings without supporting evidence is of no avail. Or, the defendants chose to ( documents re,ed by ,,." ";:::X;]1""l-;lll illl"ll,jli am not convinced that the contentions raised by the defendants need consideration for the oAatthis juncture.r".",'::t#".,;'j,;HT:::iJ".:,:"# Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.7 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that defendants 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to tfre appticant aank with future interest and costs.

¶25

In the resutt, the present Original Apptication No.854/2023 is allowed as under: _

¶26

i) tne defendants 1 to 3 are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.23,25,590.18ps along with interest @9.53olo per annum simple from the date of application tilt the date of r.eatizationpo<.re

¶27

oA.854l2OZ3

¶28

ii) the OA claim is^{secured bY waYof} hypothecation of^{equipment describedin the} schedule annexed to^{the OA and the} applicant bank^is entitled^{to proceed against} the same for recovery^{of its dues;}

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is^{entitled to proceed} against the^person and^propertiesof defendants for^{realization of its dues; and}

¶30

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitled for the costs.}

¶31

10, The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of^{receipt of this Order'}

¶32

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶33

L2.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in Web^Site.

¶34

(Dictated to the steno, signed^and pronounced by me in the open court^{on this the} 28th day of August,²⁰²⁵⁾

¶35

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. S S Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. S S Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

gattameni vijay srinanth versus Union Bank of India

Yele Mallesappa versus Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

Dudekula Raja Hussain versus Bank of India

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Supreme Batteries

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Cepro Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Yammanuru Lakshmamma