Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s Vivimed Labs Limited

DRT20 Jul 2026OA/128/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Rare Asset Reconstruction Limited against Vivimed Labs Limited and its directors/guarantors, directing the recovery of approximately Rs.231 crores along with interest. The Court also directed the sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties for realization of the debt.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs.231,92,03,999/- jointly and severally with interest; to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties; issue recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/s Vivimed Labs Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 2OrH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.128 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Rare Asset Reconstruction Limited Company, Registered office at 104-106, Gala Argos, Beside Harikrupa towers, Gujarat college road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad - 380 006. Gujarat

...

Applicant

VERSUS

M/s. Vivimed Labs Limited. Represented by Managing Director Shri. Santhosh Varalwar

¶11

Corp. Office: North End, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad PIN-500034. Email: co nta ct@v ivim ed la bs. com; yugandhar. kopparthi@vivimedla bs.com

¶12

Also at:

¶13

M/s. Vivimed Labs Limited. Represented by Managing Director Shri. Santhosh Varalwar, Reg. office at'. #78/A, Kolhar Ind. Area, Bidar, Karnataka PIN: 585 403

¶14

Sri. Santosh Varalwar, S/o. Dr. V. Manohar Rao Plot No. 3, Nagarjuna Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶15

Sri. Manohar Rao S/o, Sri. V. Gunavantha Rao D.No. 2-2-1105126/3, Tilak Nagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500 044.

¶16

loA.No.L28/2022)

¶17

Sri. Subash Varalwar, S/o. Dr. V. Manohar Rao H.No. 4-7-6713, Krishna Kuteer, Nagendra Nagar Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad - 500 007

¶18

Sri. Sandeep Varalwar, S/o. Dr. V. Manohar Rao Plot No.29, Bhanu Enclave, Yapral, Secunderabad - 500 087.

¶19

Sri. Vithabhai Varalwar, W/o. Dr. V. Manohar Rao. D.No.2-2-1105/26/3, Tilak Nagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500 044.

¶20

Smt. Sujatha Varalwar, W/o Sri. Santosh Varalwar, Plot No. 3, Nagarjuna Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶21

M/s. BBR Projects Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Sri. Santosh Varalwar. D.No. 1303 & 1304, Sy No. ll/27 Khanamet, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. vuqandhar. kooparthi@vivimedla bs.com

¶22

......Defendants No.1 to 8

¶23

Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait
Rep. by its Authorized Officer at
BSC, Ground Floor,
6-3-2s2/ r/ 3 & 6-3-2s2/ r/ 3 / A,
E rra ma n zil,
Hyderabad 500082
::::-1:-I--:--
10.India Bank (erstwhile e-Alla rQEukrrfli
Rep. by its Authorised ff -$ ffi-r
Himayatnagar Branch, dF (:.)
3-6-150, Himayatnagar, rt
Hyderabad - 500 029. 2
o ,u ,r,

¶24

(oA. No.128/2022)

¶25

11. EXIM Bank

¶26

Rep. by its Authorized Officer Golden Edifice, 2nd Floor, 6-3-639/640, Khairatabad Circle, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶27

International Finance Corporation (IFC) Rep. by its Authorized Officer Vibgyor Towers, 6th Floor, G Block, C-62, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai, MH-400051

¶28

SBI CAP Trustee Company Limited 202, Makertower(E), cuffe parade, Mumbai, 500005

¶29

Branch office at: Apeejay House, 6th Floor, West wing- 3,

¶30

Dinshaw Wachha Road, Church Gate Mumbai - 400025

¶31

NSL, Icon Buliding 2nd Floor,

¶32

Door No. 8-2-684/2/A,

¶33

Road No. 12, Banjara Hills Hyderabad - 500 034

¶34

.....proforma Defendants No. 9 to 13.

¶35

Counsel for the Parties:

¶36

For the Applicant

¶37

Sri GP Yashvardhan

¶38

qtoB Sri Siddharth Pogula ?i' ORDER Applicant led the present OA against Defendants for sum of Rs.231,92,O3,9981- (Rupees Two

¶39

Nine Hundred and Ninety Eight only) i.e.,

¶40

(oA.No.L28/20221

¶41

a) A sum of Rs.58,66,50,177/-^{under cash credit facility with interest} @15.600/o^{p.a plus penal interest with monthly rests from date of} application till the date of realization;

¶42

b) A sum of Rs.36,26,37,713/-^{under term loan account facilitywith} subsequent interest @15.05%^{p.a plus penal interest with monthly} rests from date of application till the date^{of realization;}

¶43

c) A sum of Rs.42,70,33,697/-^{underWCDL facilitywith subsequent} interest @15.600lo^{p.a plus penalinterestwith monthly rests from} date of application till the date of^realization;

¶44

d) A sum of Rs.77,67,53,504/-^{underWCDL facilitywith subsequent} interest @15.60%^{p.a plus penalinterestwith monthly rests from} date of application till the date of^realization ;

¶45

e) A sum of Rs.16,61,28,9071-^{under WCTL facility with subsequent} interest @15.600/o^{p.a plus penal interest with monthly rests from} date of application till the date^{of realization} ;

¶46

and in default for sale of^{hypothecated movables and mortgaged} properties as mentioned in the schedules^"A to D" to OA'

¶47

As per the averments in the application,^{the Applicant Bank} states that the defendant No.1^is a^{Company engagedin business of} molecules, formulations, healthcare,^{pharmaceuticalsand specialty}

¶48

chem endants no.2 to 8 are the^{guarantors whoexecuted} securing repayment of financial^assistance . Defendants no.9 to 12 are^{proforma parties} a{&iteo o over secured assets and defendant^{no.3 is} 5:,''t^{gull]but$ .n} a.

¶49

(oA. No.128/2022)

¶50

the security trustee in respect of pledged shares. The defendant no.1 availed Rs.10,95,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 24.01.2004 and executed agreement of loan, agreement of Pledge of goods and assets dated 27.01.2004, agreement of hypothecation of goods, deed of guarantee etc. The defendant no.1 availed renewal cum enhancement of financial assistance and the limits were enhanced to Rs.19,40,50,000/- vide letter dated 10.08.2004. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 also availed FUBD/FDBB limit of Rs.3.00 Crores for a period of 3 months. Supplemental agreement of loan for increase in overall limit dated 01.08.2006 for a sum of Rs.28,40,00,000/- and hypothecation charge created in favour of E- SBH on all the^goods, book debts and all movable assets.^The defendant no.1 also availed term loan-III of Rs.7,95,00,000/-,^term loan -IV of Rs.12,05,00,000/- and a corporate loan of Rs.10.00 crores. Defendants No.2,3,4 and 7 executed supplemental deed^{of guarantee} securing the repayment of financial assistance availed by^defendant no.1 to a tune of Rs.78,81,00,000/-. Subsequently defendant^no.1 represented by its Managing director availed enhanced^{working capital} of Rs. /- on^12.05.2008. Defendant no.1 created by way of deposit of title deeds of The said security created by !!l! ,f]li rio.t rant< by way of lst^{pari passu} charge to the mortgage of schedule properties as AtoD.

¶51

¶52

(OA.No.12812022l'

¶53

The facilities provided to defendant no.1 have been renewed from

¶54

time to time and final limits as on 08.06.202L are as follows:

¶55

S.No.	Natureof facilities	Amount inCrores
1.	CC(includingCCECLlimitand	152.00
	otherlimits)
2.	Termloan	70.00
3.	Nonfundbasedlimits	10.00
	Total	232.00

¶56

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants having availed the said loan facilities failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on 28.0t.2021 and issued legal Notice dated 22.03.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.231,92,03,9981- (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty One Crores Ninety Two Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Eight only) with future interest @15.600/o p.di @ 15.05%^p.a respectively with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶57

-r\ /,.,^..-..:{ 2. Defenddfr* iio.isi[t B"i5ftN written statement and denied. the li x "i^n\t averTietr Ti. ,juilE0,$^. Itiftadmitted that the defendants availed the r{qg,. uro mortgage ,0,^{#f,rmovablepropertiesin favour of} ,,1",,+.^ ,1r,Y',.",t^,' ttt t, ;'r ,i1,, - 1 11 ;!!:i.,,.';*' 6 u .,,. -.,r,::-;,U,/Jr'

¶58

(oA.No.128/2022)

¶59

applicant bank. It is submitted that defendants availed the loan facilities with rate of interest as agreed was between 10.70olo to 10.75o/o but the Applicant bank without prior notice enhanced the rate of interest to 15.600lo, 16.95 and 15.50o/o p.a. It is submitted that defendant no.1 was constrained to file SA.204/2022 challenging the possession notice. It is denied that defendant no.12 has been acting as security trustee on behalf of and for the benefit of applicant bank for the shares pledged by defendants no.2 to B and they are arrayed as proforma parties without claiming any relief against them. It is further submitted that the defendants were constrained to sign blank documents executed in favour of E-SBH. It is further contended that the Applicant bank classified the loan account as NPA without following the guidelines of RBI. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶60

During the course of trial on behalf of Applicant Bank, Sri Y. Kiran Chand, Chief Manager is examined as AW.l and through him marked 33 documents as Ex.A.1 to A. 132. Sri K. Yugandhar, Company Secretary of defendant no.1 Company elamined himself as DW.1 and

¶61

filed document Ex.B.1.

¶62

ents placed on record.
4. ,',.(rf:0".,16 ,#*ihThth";h<br>iii i/ z r ,r'il zom :l
\i',*
5.
tiFioitn" u.e r r" np.-l'#
*:
--... . 4:t,i,iy'

¶63

(oA.No.128/2022 )

¶64

Now, the points that arise For consideration are:

¶65

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

¶66

ii) To what relief ?

¶67

Point No.i):

¶68

The Defendants are not disputing the fact that they availed the loan from the Applicant bank and executed necessary documents. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the defendants created mortgage in respect of the schedule mentioned properties. On behalf of Applicant, AW.1 is examined and he reiterated the version of applicant bank. The material documents are marked as Ex.A.l to A.132. Even though AW.1 is cross examined by counsel for Defendants, nothing is elicited to disprove the contention of the Applicant. Various documents exhibited by the AW.1 clearly indicates that defendants contention that Applicant Bank classified the account as NPA without following RBI guidelines is not tenable.

¶69

B. The defendants are not disputing the execution of the loan

¶70

per the documents filed by the applicants, it is defendants are liable to pay the OA by the Applicant bank. As per the EoCriinefiE the Applicant bank, it is clear that the 8

¶71

(OA.No.128/2022)

¶72

agreement of loan for overall limit dated 25.06.2012 was signed by the defendant no.1. Similarly the Memorandum of deposit of title deeds, letter of waiver, working capital term loan agreement and guarantee agreement were also signed by the defendants. So considering all the circumstances of the case, I hold that the Applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 to 8.

¶73

Point No.ii)

¶74

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

¶75

The Defendants No.1 to B are jointly and severally liable to pay the Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.231,92,O3,999/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty One Crores Ninety Two Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Eight only) i.e.,

¶76

a) A sum of Rs.58,66,50,777/- under cash credit facility with

¶77

interest @15.60o/o p.a from date of application till the date of

¶78

6,26,37,7t3/- under term loan account facility

¶79

¶80

,$F' ubseq interest @15.05% p.a from date of application 2 eirr,Ubilil" lization;

¶81

- -L :-4.

¶82

{oA.No.128/2022)

¶83

c) A sum of Rs.42,70,33,697/'under WCDL facility^with subsequent interest @15.600/o^p.a from date^{of application till} the date of realization;

¶84

d) A sum of Rs.77,67,53,504/- under WCDL facility^with subsequent interest @15.600/o^p.a from date of application^till the date of realization ;

¶85

e) A sum of Rs.16,61,28,907/- under WCTL facility^{with subsequent} interest @7.650/o p.a from date of application till the^{date of} rea lization ;

¶86

the Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the^hypothecated movables and mortgaged^properties as mentioned in the^schedules"A to D" to OA towards realization of the debt due. However^{it is directed} to pay the sale^proceeds to Applicant and defendants^{no. 9} to^{11 as} per 2nd pari passu charge in respect of schedule B property and also directed to^pay the sale proceeds to Applicant and defendant^no.12 having 1st pari passu charge in respect of Schedule C^property.

¶87

The applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and properties of defendants No.2 to B and properties of defendants No.1

¶88

firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶89

Appli led to the costs of the OA.
: Z0JUrr2n
'tf I
10
"'h,r$W

¶90

(oA.No.128/2022)

¶91

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

¶92

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶93

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶94

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of luly, 2026)

sdl_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

'1h(uE COPY
oxffi

1,),

State Bank of India v. M/s Vivimed Labs Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s Vivimed Labs 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

Indian Bank versus Mr. Sarvasetty Suresh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sheshu Sarikonda

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vinayaka Textiles

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S. Madhava Indane

Thumolla Radhakishan versus Omprakash Deora People Cooperative Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peddapaka Ramesh