Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sgr Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd.

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/1316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The Applicant bank proved the loan facility, defaults, and non-performance of conditions. The single Defendant respondent failed to substantiate vague defences regarding high interest and fraudulent document execution, resulting in the claim being accepted.

What did the court decide?

The Applicant is directed to recover Rs. 5,50,04,121.63 with 10% simple interest from 30.06.2022 till realization, jointly and severally against Defendants, along with a Recovery Certificate for execu

Union Bank of India versus Sgr Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1316/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India, JP Nagar branch, No. 759, Gururaya Mansion, 8^th Main Road, 3^rd Phase, J. P. Nagar, Bengaluru -560078, Rep. by its Chief Manager,

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

SGR Minerals and Metal Pvt Ltd., No. 53, 3^rd Floor, Empire Tower, Railway Parallel Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru -560020. Rep. by its Directors Sri. KR Nagesh Sri. PB Raghunath Sri. Aneesh Singhal.

¶10

And also at No. 10, Shanthipura Main Road, Electronic City Phase-2, Bengaluru -560099.

¶11

And also at

¶12

No. 196/1, Magadi Main Road, Gollarahatti, Bengaluru -560091.

¶13

Sri. K R Nagesh, S/o. K V Radhakrishnaiahy No.53, 3^rd Floor, Empire Tower, Railway Parallel Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru -560020. Director of SGR Minerals and Metal Pvt Ltd.

¶14

And also at No.10, Shanthipura Main Road, Electronic City Phase -2, Bengaluru -560099.

¶15

And also at No. 196/1, Magadi Main Road,

¶16

OA 1316/2022

¶17

¶18

Gollarahatti, Bengaluru -560091.

¶19

And also at No. 1236, 2^nd Cross, Lakshmipuram, Kempe Gowda Nagar, Bengaluru -560019.

¶20

Sri. P B Raghunath, S/o. Iyengar PBK, No. 53, 3^rd Floor, Empire Tower, Railway Parallel Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru -560020. Director of SGR Minerals and Metal Pvt Ltd.

¶21

And also at No.10, Shanthipura Main Road, Electronic City Phase -2, Bengaluru -560099. And also at No. 196/1, Magadi Main Road, Gollarahatti, Bengaluru -560091.

¶22

And also at A 103, FF Blcok, Elite Greenwoods, Basavapura Main Road, Bengaluru -560100.

¶23

Sri. Aneesh Singhal, No. 53, 3^rd Floor, Empire Tower, Railway Parallel Road, Kumara Park west, Bengaluru -560020. Director of SGR Minerals and Metal Pvt Ltd. And also at No.10, Shanthipura Main Road, Electronic City Phase -2, Bengaluru -560099.

¶24

And also at No. 196/1, Magadi Main Road, Gollarahatti, Bengaluru -560091.

¶25

M/s. Sreegruha Ventures Pvt Ltd, Flat No. 202, 2^nd Floor, 6-2-30/B, Empress Court, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, TG -500004. Rep. by its Director, Sri. T. Vamshidar Sri. Parki Mohan Madhan Mohan Sri. Ramesh Bhagavathula.

¶26

OA 1316/2022

¶27

¶28

Sri. T. Vamshidar, S/o. S Trirividhi, Director of M/s. Sreegruha Ventures Pvt Ltd., Flat No. 202, 2^nd Floor, 6-2-30/B, Empress Court, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, TG -500004.

¶29

Sri. Parki Mohan Madhan Mohan, Director of M/s. Sreegruha Ventures Pvt Ltd Flat No. 202, 2^nd Floor, 6-2-30/B, Empress Court, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, TG-500004.

¶30

Sri. Ramesh Bhagavathula, Director of M/s. Sreegruha Ventures Pvt Ltd., Flat No. 202, 2^nd Floor, 6-2-30/B, Empress Court, Khairatabad, Hyderabad -TG-500004.

¶31

Sri. Deepak Bhaskar Pulipati, S/o. Pulapati Baskar Naidu, No. 113, 11^th Main, 4^th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru -560041.

¶32

...DEFENDANTS

¶33

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶34

Applicant : Prabhu Rao C. B Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 9 : Ex parte Defendant No.2 : Balaraj & Associates

¶35

FINAL ORDER

¶36

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 5,50,04,121.63 (Rupees five crore fifty lakh four thousand one hundred twenty-one and paisa sixty-three only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶37

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant No. 1 is a company/borrower represented by its Directors, namely Defendant Nos. 2

¶38

OA 1316/2022

¶39

¶40

to 4. Defendant No. 4 is a newly impleaded party. Defendant No. 5 stood as the corporate guarantor, represented by its Directors, namely Defendant Nos. 6 to 8. Defendant Nos. 2 to 9 stood as guarantors for the credit facility, and the scheduled property was also mortgaged to the Applicant. Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 availed an Open Cash Credit (OCC) facility with a limit of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore only) for the purpose of working capital for the effective operations of Defendant No. 1. After the facility was renewed, only the OCC limit was revised, and the said limit was converted into a SOD (Secured Overdraft) limit.

¶41

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in consideration of the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed the necessary loan documents and created mortgage over the schedule properties in favour of the Applicant Bank as security for the said loan facility.

¶42

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loans, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶43

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the accounts.

¶44

Summons were duly issued to all the Defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 9 failed to appear and were accordingly set ex parte on 13.06.2024. Defendant No. 2 entered appearance through counsel by filing

¶45

OA 1316/2022

¶46

¶47

a Vakalat and also filed a Written Statement. However, despite being afforded sufficient opportunities, Defendant No. 2 failed to adduce any evidence in support of his defence. Consequently, the evidence of Defendant No. 2 was closed on 19.02.2026.

¶48

The Defendant No. 2, in his Written Statement, has not raised any substantial or bona fide defence with regard to the availing of the loan facilities or the execution of the loan and security documents. The Defendant No. 2 contends that the rate of interest charged by the Applicant is exorbitant and unconscionable. It is further contended that the Applicant obtained signatures of the Defendant on blank and unfilled printed formats, without explaining the nature, contents, name, or nomenclature of the documents. According to Defendant No. 2, the Applicant thereafter allegedly filled up and concocted the suit documents to suit its own convenience, with an intention to derive wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss and prejudice to the Defendant.

¶49

The Applicant led evidence through AW-1, who filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the Original Application and produced documents marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-22.

¶50

Heard for both side and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶51

The following issues arise for consideration in the light of pleading and evidence:

¶52

OA 1316/2022

¶53

¶54

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as

¶55

against the Defendants?

¶56

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶57

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶58

The said contentions of Defendant No. 2 are wholly untenable, bald, and devoid of any material particulars. The allegations regarding charging of exorbitant interest are made without reference to the contractual terms, agreed rate of interest, or any contemporaneous objection raised by the Defendant at the time of availing the facility or thereafter. Similarly, the plea that signatures were obtained on blank printed formats is a vague and afterthought defence, not supported by any complaint, correspondence, or contemporaneous protest made to any authority. The execution of the loan and security documents is duly evidenced and stands admitted in substance by the availing and utilization of the credit facilities. The allegation of fabrication or concoction of documents is serious in nature but remains unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence. In the absence of any proof, such self-serving averments cannot dislodge the binding contractual obligations of the Defendant.

¶59

The documents exhibited and proved by the Applicant satisfactorily establish the sanction, disbursement, renewal and enhancement of the credit facilities availed by the Defendants, as well as the execution of the requisite loan, security and other allied documents. The Defendant No.2 have neither seriously disputed the availing of the credit facilities nor the execution of the said documents. Though sufficient opportunities were

¶60

OA 1316/2022

¶61

¶62

afforded, the Defendant No.2 failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence or to substantiate the averments made in their Written Statement. Consequently, the defence set up by the Defendant No.2 remains unsubstantiated and does not inspire confidence. In the absence of any cogent evidence to rebut the case of the Applicant, this Tribunal finds no merit in the defence raised by the Defendants and accepts the case of the Applicant as duly proved.

¶63

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶64

The OA has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and the claim of the Applicant is found to be legally tenable. Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed by the Defendants for business purpose and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 10.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined

¶65

In the result, OA.No.1316/2022, is allowed,

¶66

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 5,50,04,121.63 (Rupees five crore fifty lakh four thousand one hundred twenty-one and paisa sixty-three only) along with pendente lite and future interest of 10.00% p.a. (simple) from 30.06.2022 till realization, from Defendants jointly, severally and personally, after giving due credit to all amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any,

¶67

OA 1316/2022

¶68

¶69

and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule of properties to the OA shall form part of the Recovery Certificate.

¶70

ii) If the sale proceeds are found insufficient to clear the loan amount due from the Defendants jointly, severally and personally, then the Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against their other assets for recovery of the balance amount due.

¶71

iii) The Applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for which

¶72

Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶73

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and

¶74

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶75

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms

¶76

of this final order.

¶77

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶78

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶79

Rules, 1993.

¶80

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24^th day of June, 2026)

¶81

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER ANNEXURES

¶82

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶83

AW-1: Sri. S K Vasantha Kumar, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶84

OA 1316/2022

¶85

¶86

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶87

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	18.07.2015	Sanction
A2	21.07.2015	Demand promissory note
A3	21.07.2015	Consent for disclosure of information to CIBIL
A4	21.07.2015	Composite agreement
A5	21.07.2016	General form of guarantee
A6	01.07.2015	Sale Deed
A7	22.07.2015	Memorandum of deposit of title deed
A8	12.08.2015	Sale Deed
A9	18.08.2015	Sale Deed
A10	18.08.2015	Sale Deed
A11	14.09.2015	Memorandum of deposit of title Deed
A12	13.03.2012	Sale Deed
A13	10.10.2018	Letter of Sanction
A14	07.02.2019	Letter of Sanction
A15	06.03.2019	Composite agreement
A16	06.03.2019	Demand promissory note
A17	06.03.2017	Consent for disclosure of information
A18	06.03.2017	General form of Guarantee
A19	06.03.2019	Offer of security
A20	03.02.2022	Legal notice
A21	--	Postal receipt
A22	--	Certificate statement of account

¶88

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Sgr Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sgr Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Haja Majmudeen Abdul Razak

Union Bank of India versus M/s Pallavi Pharma

Ms Joysri Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Haji Mohammad Sultan Sofi

Ellaquai Dehati Bank versus Ghulam Rasool Mir

Keshav Prasad Choubey versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited