Allowed

M/S.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. M/S. Navajeevan Organisation

DRT5 May 2026OA/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by NBARD against the respondents for recovery of a defaulting loan facility. The court held that the defendants failed to prove their liabilities and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued againstliable parties for Rs.31,78,461 with future interest at 18% p.a.Enumerate costs.

M/S.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE srH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.17 ol 2025

¶5

Between :

¶6

M/s. National bank for Agriculture And Rural Development, Regional office at H.No.1-1-61, RTC "X" roads,^p.B. No.1863, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 5OO O2O. Represented by its Dy. Gen Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Navajeevan Organisation, Represented by its Executive Director Mr. K. Sahadevaiah, Office at D.No. 13-83/8, Nagarajapuram, Ambedkar nagar,

¶10

Venkatagiri - 524 132. SPSR Nellore Dist.

¶11

Sri K. Sahadevaiah, s/o K. Ganapathi, male, aged major, occ: Executive Director of M/s. Navajeevan Organisation, D.No.9-216, East street, Ambedkar nagar, Venkatagiri- 524 I32. District.

¶12

,^female, aged major, ffi^ of M/s. Navajeevan h No.9-216, East street, * 1$ffffi# ,^Venkatagiri- 524 t32. sPSR r\ rict. ,g L I ! Wry,

¶13

(OA. No.1712025)

¶14

Sri I. Venkataiah, Male, aged major, occ: Coordinator Of M/s. Navajeevan Organisation, D.No.9-216, East street, Ambedkar nagar, Venkatagiri- 524 t32. SPSR Nellore District.

¶15

Sri K. Penchalaiah, Male, aged major, occ: Mandal Coordinator of M/s. Navajeevan Organisation, D.No.9-216, East street, Ambedkar nagar, Venkalagiri-^{524 132.} SPSR Nellore^District.

¶16

Mr. B. Venkateswarlu, Male, aged maior,^occ:mandal Coordinator of^{M/s.Navajeevan Organisation,} D.No.9-216,^{East street,} Ambedkar nagar,^{Venkalagiri-524 t32.} SPSR Nellore^District.

¶17

Sri Ch. Vijaya^Kumar, Aged major,^{male, occ: organiser of} M/s. Navajeevan^{Organisation,} D.No.9-216,^{East street,} Ambedkar nagar,^{Venkatagiri- 524 132'} SPSR Nellore^District.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel^{for the Parties:} For the APP|icant

¶20

Defendants No.1to^{3,5 to 7}

¶21

Defen

¶22

u1tryte${^ir8ltebsite

¶23

Smt. V. Uma^Devi

¶24

Sri GL Prasada^Rao Exparte

¶25

24.04.2026 05.05.2026 18.05.2026

¶26

(OA.No.u/202s)

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,78,461l- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty One

¶29

only) with future interest @ 1B% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶30

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and defendants no.2 to 7 are the members of the Governing council of defendant no.1. The defendants availed loan facility of Rs.20.00 lakhs along with Rs.202.33 lakhs as grant from NABARD vide sanction letter dated 13.09.2010. The defendants executed demand promissory note, Resolution dated 28.10.2011, loan agreement dated 29.11.2011. Again the defendants availed another loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs and executed necessary loan documents. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the //.{.r,., _".€aid"loan , ., . ':":::-^{facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as} f.^{-'SU,f! tlie.'qqcount was classifiedas NpA. Inspite of demandsmade by} "ii tA^li 'f tk'fiqr"nounts have not regutarized the account, and the lt -_eScant 0ep'iii.JHf uu[iiirrr"o recail notice dated 28.01.2021, but the ; ' ' s come rorward to repav the same. rhe totat ctaim Qbtfg*W'not k'e{ffin against deFendants is of of Rs.31,7g,461l- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and

¶31

(OA.No.1712025)

¶32

Sixty One only) with future interest @ 18o/o^p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶33

The Defendant No.1 filed written statement and defendants^{no.2,3 &} 5 to 7 adopted the same and denied^the averments^{made in OA. The} defendants denied any assurances,^{representations, promises for} grant of alleged loan facility of Rs.20'00 lakhs. It^{is contended that} the application is barred by^{limitationof 3 yearsas contemplated under} Section 24 of Recovery of dues^{to bank and financialInstitutionsAct.} It is alleged that the disbursed^{amount has been further disbursedto} the beneficiaries who are dalits / tribal^{people. It is furthersubmitted} that no legal notice was served^{uponthese defendants. Hence prayed} for dismissal of OA.

¶34

I have^{perused the documents placed on record.}

¶35

Heard the arguments.

¶36

Now, the^{points that arise for consideration are:}

¶37

as made in OA . i) Whether:the Applicant^{Bank has proved its claim} ,/ .,^.-. .: .,'1,. aoainst the defendants^? .I/ ti^{</sup> "- : .". rerie-i ?; i^- , 6l6g-n Point No'i): a}

¶38

¶39

(OA.No.1712025)

¶40

Mr. C.R. Abuvarajan, Dy. General Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.13 are marked through AW.1.

¶41

I As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the Applicant bank failed to follow the RBI guidelines as per the norms.

¶42

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.13 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶43

present Original application is allowed with costs as

¶44

(OA.No.171202s)

¶45

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.31,78,4611- (Rupees Thirty One^Lakhs

¶46

Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty One only)^with future interest @ 18o/o^p.a wlth monthly rests from date of^{filing of OA} till the date of realization.

¶47

The Applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^personand properties of defendants No.2 to 7 and properties of defendant no.1 Organisation towards realization of^the debt^due.

¶48

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶49

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

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the^pafties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected. signed and^pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of May, 2026)

¶53

sd/-
jrRU! (G. GOPTCHAND)
i-1,.9 PRESIDING OFFICER
Asst.
F : i-1,

M/S.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. M/S. Navajeevan Organisation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. M/S. Navajeevan Organisation

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

Kyramkonda Kanaka Raju versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Banothu Jayasinga Raju versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Mr Ravulapally Ravichandra versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Bharath Power Looms Industry

Bank of India versus Mrs. Uddamarri Sabitha (Female)