Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Osrmp Warehousing Enterprises

DRT6 Oct 2025OA/950/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an Original Application for debt recovery. It allowed the claim against the principal borrower and certain guarantors/jointly liable parties, while absolving partners from personal liability holding them liable only to the extent of their pro-rata share in the firm.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 4 and 12 jointly and severally; Defendants 5 to 11 liable to pro-rata share in the 4th firm. Property mortgage enforced. Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Osrmp Warehousing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6Th DAY OF OCTOBER,2O25

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.CoM, L.LB.^(HONS.), IVI.A,

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 950 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Union Bank of India HI Tech City Branch Madhapur, R.R. Dist. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶8

And

¶9

M/s. OSRMP Warehousing Enterprises Rep by its Partner Mr. Maddipatla - Vamsidhar, Plot No.40,41 3'd Floor Ventureast, Plaza Road No.2 Financial District, Nanakramguda Hyderabad, Tela ng a na- 500032.

¶10

Mr. Madd ipatla Vamsidhar Managing Partner M/s. OSRMP WarehousinE Enterprises S/o M.V.R. Prasad,^{Major, occa'Business} Villa No.62 and 63, NSL Orian^Villas Besides Raidurgam Police Station Serilinga^{m pa} lly, Hyderabad-500032

¶11

l,lrs. Maddipatla Kalpana^Prasad Partner M/s. OSRMP Warehousing^Enterprises W/o Shri M.V.R. Prasad,^{Major, Occ: Business} H. No. 8-2-309/12, D1 Trendsetville Road No.3, Police Station,^{Baniara Hills} Hydera bad^- 5 0 0034.

¶12

Also at:

¶13

villa No.62 and 63, NSL Orian^villas Besides Raidurgam^{Police Station} Serilin^ga m^pa lly,^{Hyderabad - 500032.} ,M* U/^'c"

¶14

¶15

oa.95012022

¶16

M/s. Veena Constructions Managing Partner lvl rs. Maddipatla Kalpana^prasad H. No.8-2-309/12

¶17

Age: Major, Occ: Business H. No. 8-2-309/12, D1 Trendsetville Road No.3, Police Station, Banjara Hills Hydera bad- 5000 34.

¶18

Mrs. Ratakonda Sarala Devi Partner: M/s. Veena Constructions Wo^{Sr Rami} Reddy, Major Occ: Business, H. No.8-2-68211, Landmark Building, Beside Ohris Road No.12, Banjara Hi s Hyderabad, Telangana-500034.

¶19

Also at:

¶20

Villa No.204, Adarsh^palm Residency Bellandur, Bangalore.

¶21

Mrs. T. Veena Reddy Partner: M/s. Veena Constructions Wo Shri T. Sudhir Reddy, Major Occ: Business, Flat No.303 Tapovan Apartments Central Excise Colony Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-5OOO 13.

¶22

l,4rs. C RSridevi Partner: M/s. Veena Constructions W/o Shri C.M. Rajesh R/o 7295, Road No.63 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.

¶23

Mrs. C. R.^prakruthi Partner: Fl/s. Veena Constructions W/o Shri C.M. Rajesh R/o 1295, Road No.63 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.

¶24

Mrs. C. Vijaya Jyothi Partner: M/s. Veena Constructions W/o Shri C.M.^prakash Rlo 7295, Road No.63 A //,\ ,4"*.4,.rq- , \a"\v

¶25

oa.gsol2o2z

¶26

¶27

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. 10. Shauntalama Partner: M/s. Veena Constructions Wo^{Shri Suresh Naidu, Major} Occ: Business, H. No. 4-60 Petladurthi, Yerraguntla Kadapa, Dist. A.P.516 309. 11. N4rs. Gali Saraswathi Partner: M/s. Veena Constructions W/o Shri GM KNaidu, lvlajor Occ: Business, H. No. 1-18 Venkatapuram, Ramachandram Kammapalem, Chittoor Andhra Pradesh-517 561. Also at: H. No. 252lA, Road No. 12 MLA Colony, Banjara Hills Hyderabad -500 034. 72. M/s. OSR Infra Private Ltd. Rep. by. Mr. Maddipatla Vamsidhar Managing Director, Major Occ: Business, Regd. Office Plot No. 49,41, 3'd Floor Venturlst Plaza, Road No. 2 Financial Dist. Nanakramguda Hyderabad, Tela ng a na- 500032. .... Defendants. Cou nsel for the Applicant Mr. P. Balaji. Defendants 1, 2 to 6 Exparte. Counsel for Defendants^{7,8,9 &10} l4r. S. David Raju. Defendant No.11 & 12 Exparte.

¶28

::^qLLLB ::

¶29

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA} u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act,^{1993 for} recovery of a sum of Rs.3,57,01,535.11Ps from d.f"nffi_.r^rro^{12 jointly and} , 2'^''rtt''

¶30

¶31

oa.gsol2022

¶32

severally along with interest @16.300/0 Per^annum with monthly rests along with costs from the date of OA till the date of realisation and sale of OA schedule properties belonging to defendants 1to 5,

¶33

The facts of the case, in brief, are that defendant No.l partnership firm availed Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.256 lakhs for construction of rural Godown on 22.Og.20!4 and another loan of Rs.182 lakhs for additional works on 03.05.2016. The loans are secured by equitable mortgage of OA schedule properties. Defendants 2 and 3 partners of defendant No.1 firm and defendant No.4 and its partners 2, 5 to 11 stood as 9uarantors to the loans and executed all necessary documents. Defendant No.1 stood as a corporate guarantor. These loans were rescheduled and the accrued unpaid interest were converted into a Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL) to a tune of Rs.43 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 27.12.2079. Defendants executed respective supplementary agreements. Due to default in repayment, of the loan accounts became NpA, followed by demand notice u/s 73(2) of Securitisation Act. As there are no prospects of repayment, present OA is filed.

¶34

Defendants 1 to 6 were set exparte vide docket order dated 13.06.2023 for non-representation despite summons. Whereas defendants 11 and 12 were set exparte vide docket orders dated 74.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 respectively for nonrepresentation.

¶35

Defendant No.8 filed written statement and defendants 7,9 and 10 adopted the same. The submissions of the defendants, in brief, are they have not signed the supplementary amendatorv N""

¶36

o^.9s012022

¶37

agreements, funded interest term loan documents and^general form of guarantee dated 27.72.2019. Applicant bank filed the present OA without issuing any notice to the defendants. The illegal declaration of loan account as NPA affected the credlt rating, credit worthiness and business activities of the defendant. MODT and subsequent extensions were not sulficiently stamped. The OA is barred by limitation.

¶38

¶39

Applicant Bank examined J. Shashi Kumar, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 12 documents through him as Ex. A.1to^{Ex. A.12.} It is submitted that during the course of the^proceedings, the claim against defendants 5 and 8 was withdrawn.

¶40

Contesting defendants examined lvl rs. C. Vijaya lyothi, defendant No.9 as DW.1 and marked no documents.

¶41

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank. Learned counsel for contesting defendants^prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the materlal^placed on record.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank submits that 1st defendant company-borrower failed to repay the loans as per the agreed terms. Even in the OA proceedings the principal borrower did not choose to^pursue the matter.^Accordingly, learned counsel^prayed the claim of the applicant bank may be allowed in the interest of^justice.

¶43

9. The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶44

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants 7 to 12 and the oA schedule^{prop"n,"rfuroU}

¶45

oA,9so/2022

¶46

As stated supra, the principal borrower 1st defendant and its partners 2 and 3 remained exparte. The guarantors 2 to 6 and 11 and 12 also remained exparte. In para 5 (C) of the OA, applicant bank stated that defendants 2 and 3 in their individual capacity and defendant No.4 and its partners defendants 2, 5 to 11 had personally guaranteed for the due repayment of the loan facilities availed by defendant No.1. In support of its claim against the defendants, applicant bank relied on the Exhibits A.3 to A.6. However, the contesting defendants 7 to 10, in their written statement, deny the liability on the ground of not being parties to the loan transactions in their individual capacity. A perusal of Exhibits A.3 to A.5 supplementary agreements reveat that these documents were signed by defendants D.2 & 3 onty and Exhibit A.6 guarantee agreement was signed by the Managing Director of defendant No.4 in addition to defendants 2 and 3 being the representatives of 1st defendant. Applicant bank has not disputed these averments in the Evidence AfRdavit of AW.1. Nor did the applicant bank bring on record any fresh material to disprove the contentions of defendants 7 to 10. However, defendants 7 to 10 have not disputed of their being partners in the 4th defendant firm. In such a situation, while holding defendants 7 to 1O being responsible to the extent of their share holdings in the 4th defendant partnership firm, I absolve them from individual liability towards the OA claim. Similarly, defendants 5 and 6 are also entiued to be absolved of personal liability from the OA claim. Under these circumstances, I hold defendants 1 to 4 and 12 joinfly and severally and defendants 5 to 11 to the extent of their pro_rata share holding in the 4th defendant companyAare liable to pay

/l$,s.

OA.95O|2O22

the OA claim to the appllcant bank along with future interest and costs.

¶51

In the result, the present Original Application No.950/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶52

i) defendants 1 to 4 and 12^jointly and severally and defendants 5 to 11 to the extent of thelr pro-rata share holding in the 4th defendant firm, to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.3,57,01,535.11Ps along with interest @120lo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶53

ii) the OA clalm is secured by way of mortgage of properties as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for realisation of its dues;

¶54

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants 1 to 4 and 12 for realisation of its dues; and

¶55

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶56

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

¶57

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶58

fu,-,

¶59

oA.gsol2022

¶60

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and

¶61

upload in Web^portal.

¶62

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of October, 2025).

¶63

/** (RadqESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Osrmp Warehousing Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Osrmp Warehousing Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bellamkonda Dileep

Mr.Vijaypal Reddy and another versus M/s.Indostar Capital Finance Ltd.

Shaik Ahmed Mohiddin versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anusha Agencies

Shivender Reddy Gutha versus Karvy Finance Services Ltd.

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited