Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Harikrishna Agencies

DRT11 Aug 2026OA/137/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by City Union Bank Limited against four respondents. The Court held the bank's claim for loan recovery valid and not time-barred after establishing the defendants' liability and acknowledging documents. The order granted judgment debt and rights to proceed against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Judgment debt for Rs. 45,58,913.24 with interest; permission to proceed against mortgaged property and respondent properties for debt realization; issuance of recovery certificate.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Harikrishna Agencies — Arbitration | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THE 11THDAYOF AUGUST'2026}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER} OA'No'137^{ot 2026}

¶3

Between:

¶4

Citv Union^{Bank Limited,} D.No.5-7-100/13,^NH-7, Doctors^{Lane, Nirmal,} Nirmal district -^{504 105'} Represented^{bY its Branh Manager}

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s.^{Harikrishna Agencies'.} RePresented^{bY its ProPrietor} Sri Bhumanna^Chitikeshi' D.No.5-35/6,^{Bus Stand'} khunuPr.,^{Nirmal-504 203'}

¶8

Sri^{BhumannaChitikeshi'} S/o Chitikeshi^Bhuchaiah' Aqed 69 Years,^male' P.i o lB- t17 /^{t, VidYanagar'} ihunuput,^{Nirmal - 504 203'}

¶9

Smt^{C. KanakaLakshmi'} W/o Chitikeshi^Bhumanna' Aoed^{major, female'} R7o 18-117/1,^VidYanagar' - fhunuPrt,^{Nirmal - 504 203'}

¶10

Sri^{Chitikeshi Harikrishna'} S/o Chitikeshi^Bhumanna' Aoed⁴⁷ Years,^male' R7o fi'tL7 lL,^Vidyanagar Defendants ffiQ1N

¶11

KhanaPur,^{Nirmal -504 2} S^11NJE,w ''qfu--."e9'

¶12

(oA.No.137/2026)

¶13

Counsel^{for theParties:} Forthe^APPlicant	Sri C.^Prabhakar
Defendants	Sri G.^Narendranath
Orders^reservedon	07.08.2026
Pronounced^on	11.08.2026
Uploaded^inwebsiteon	11.08.2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The^{Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for} recovery^{of a total sum of Rs'45'58'913'24ps (Rupees Forty Five} Lakhs Fifty^{Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirteen and paise} TwentY four^{onlY) i'e"}

¶16

sum of Rs'45'39'206'l8ps^underloan

¶17

a) A A/c.No.512030020038676^{with further interest @ 11'45% p'a} with monthly^{rests fromdate of filing of OA till the date of} realization;

¶18

b) A sum^{of Rs.19,708'06psunder loan A/c'No'512120020101141} with further^{interest @ 9olo P'a with monthly rests from date of} filing of^{OA till the date of realization;}

¶19

and in^{default for saleof hypothecated movables and mortgaged} property as^{mentioned in the schedule to OA'}

¶20

As^{pe1-theavermentsin-the application' the Applicant Bank}

¶21

.fA*-.i;*it ;;;$s"nt ruo.r which is a^{proprietorship firm} il-^{- -.i'r ''-'i} -latf r/ defendant^{no.2, defendant no'3 is the}

¶22

nted bYjts Pro nt no.4^{stood as guarantor availed}

¶23

(oA.No'137/2026)

¶24

OLCC-MSME^{loan of Rs'40'00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated} 03.02.2020.^{The defendants executed agreement of loan cum} hypothecation,^{DP note, overdraft rules for running account' consent} letteretc.Thedefendantshypothecatedthemachineryasmentioned in schedule^{to OA and executedsupplementary hypothecationand} personal guarantee^{in favourof Applicant bank' The defendants} moftgaged^{the schedulepropertyand executed necessary documents} infavourofapplicantbank.ItissubmittedbytheApplicantbankthat the Defendants^{availedthe said loan facilities and failedto keep up the} repayment^{schedule,as such the accountwas classified as NPA'} Inspite of^{demands made by Applicantthe defendantshave not} regularized^{the account, so the Applicant bank issued recall notice} dated 01.11,2025,^{but the defendantsdid not come forwardto repay} theSame.ThetotalclaimofApplicantagainstdefendantsisof Rs.45,58,91^{3.24ps (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Fifty Eight} Thousand^{Nine HundredThirteenand paise Twentyfour only)} with interest^{@11.45olop'a and @9olo P'a respectivelyfrom date of} filing of^{OA till the date of realization' Hence the OA'} 2. The Defendants^{filed writtenstatement admitting that they availed} loan facilities^{from the Applicant bank'The defendants denied the} and mortgage^{of schedule property' The} ants is^{that the APPlicantbank} PA without^{following the guidelinesof} tfe{o65%ffiunt

¶25

(oA.No.137/2026)

¶26

RBI and that^{the claim of the applicant bankis barred by limitation'} Hence PraYed^{for dismissalof OA'}

¶27

I have^{perusedthe documents placed on record'}

¶28

Heard the^arguments.

¶29

Mr. P. Naveen^kumar ,^{BranchManager/ AW'1is examined on behalf} of the Applicant.^{Exhibits A'1 to A'35 are marked through AW'l'} Defendant^{No.2 examined himselfas DW'1 but no documentsare} exhibited^{bY him.}

¶30

Now, the^{points that arise for consideration are:} i) Whether^{the Applicant Bank has provedits claim as made in OA} against^{the defendants?}

¶31

ii) To what^{relief ?}

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

On behalf^{of the applicant bank, Shri P' NaveenKumar' Branch} Manager^{who is examined as AW'1 deposed clearly about the liability} ofthedefendantsandalsoabouttheexecutionofvariousdocuments filed by^{the applicantbank' AW'1 is not cross examined by the} defendants'^{So the evidence of AW'1 is not challengedby the} defendants.^{So the evidence of AW'1 stood unrebutted by the} h defendant^{no.2 examined himself as DW'1'}

¶34

defendants.^E, I to the defendants^{for establishing the}

¶35

his by the APPlicant^bank

¶36

:" . t A p6r0siir ttflrre oocuments exhibited are executed^{bY the}

¶37

makes'cle,ar^{that all the relevant documents}

¶38

(oA.No.137l2026)

¶39

defendantsⁱⁿ the^{normalcourseof transaction. so the contention of} the defendants that^{the applicant bank obtained their signatures on} blank documents^{is not tenable. The contentionof defendants that} there is no necessity^{of obtaining collateralsecurity by the applicant} isalsonottenabteaSnomaterialisplacedbythedefendantsfor establishing that^{for variousloan facilities availed by the defendants,} collateral security^{is not required.The other contention of defendants} isthattheclaimmadebyApplicantbankinoAisbarredbylimitation. But in view^{of the fact that defendants executedacknowledgement} letter by acknowledging^{their liabilityand as the said documents are} executed within^{3 years from the date of filing of OA, the claim of the} applicant bank^{is within time. consideringall the circumstances, I am} ofopinionthatthedefensetakenbythedefendantsisnottenable. Hence the applicant^{bank is entitledto claim the OA amount from} defendants.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

S.Intheresult,thepresentoriginalapplicationisallowedwithcostsas under:

¶42

The Defendants^{are jointlyand severally liable to pay to ApplicantBank} a total sum L3.24ps^{(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Fifty} Hundred Thirteen^{and paise Twentyfour}

¶43

tfi,i;^,rIB

¶44

(oA.No.137l2025)

¶45

c) A sum^{ofRs'45,39,206'18psunder loan Alc' No'} 512030020038676^{with further interest@ 11'45o/o p'a from} date of^{filing of OA till the date of realization;}

¶46

d) A^{sum of Rs.19,708'06psunderloan A/c'No'512120020101141} with further^{interest @ 9olo P'a from date of filing of OA till the} date of^realization;

¶47

The^{applicant bank is entitled to proceedagainst the hypothecated} movables^{and mortgaged property as mentionedin the scheduleto} OA towards^{realization of the debt due'}

¶48

The Applicant^{bank is also entitledto proceed againstthe person and} properties of^{defendant No'2 to 4 and properties of defendant no'1} towards^{realization of the debt due'}

¶49

¶50

The Applicant^{Bankis entitledto the costs of the OA'}

¶51

t2. The Applicant^{shall file a cost memo within two weeksfrom the date} of receipt^{of order'}

¶52

Issue^{Recovery certificate accordingly'}

¶53

icate a^{copy of the order to the parties concerned'}

¶54

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on
&/ 2026)
, \ll sd/-
',
ii
(G. GOPICHAND)
-r ll
ilffiw PRESIDING OFFICER
";1f iSNf^'
6

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Harikrishna Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/S. Harikrishna Agencies

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Hymavathi Textiles

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mahalaxmi Traders

N Gopal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Yerukali Chendramma

Canara Bank versus Revanth Textiles

Mr Avv Narayana and another versus Canara Bank