Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Irish Aqua LLP

DRT13 Mar 2026OA/219/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debits Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against M/s Irish Aqua LLP and partners for recovery of loan amount, dismissing defenses regarding limitation and blank documents.

What did the court decide?

Original Application allowed; defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2.83 Crores (less realized amount) with interest and costs; recovery certificate issued; entitlement to proceed against

State Bank of India versus M/S. Irish Aqua LLP — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.2l9 ot 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of^India, Stressed Assets^{RecoveryBranch-Il,} (SARB-II) first floor, OPP SandhYa Theatre, RTC Cross^Roads, Chikkadpally,^HYderabad Telangana State -^{500 020.} Represented bY^{its Chief Manager}

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s, Irish Aqua LLP, A partnershiP firm^rePresented By its^partners/ defendants 2 to 4 herein.

¶10

Sy.No,712lB, RamPallY^village, Keesara Mandal,^Medchal- Malkajgiri district -^{500 051.}

¶11

And

¶12

Plot no.95, 1st floor,^Sardar Patel Nagar, Near^{CommunityHall,} KPHB colony, KukatPallY, Hyderabad - 500^085.

¶13

Sri Gandem Mahesh, S/o Sri G. Venkat^Rao, Aged about 48 Years,^Male, Occ: business and Partner^{of 1st} Defendant firm,^{villa no.31,} Eshwaraiah enclave, Sai Siddhartha School^{lane, Nagaram,}

¶14

(oA.No.21e l202sl

¶15

Dammaiguda^{village,Keesara} Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^dist.

¶16

Smt Gandem^{SatYa Kumari,} D/o Sri Jagan^{Mohan Rao Pothula,} Aged about 71 Years,^female, Occ: business and Partner^of 1st defendant^firm H.no. tt-L-207 to^211, Mylargadda, SithaPhalmandi, Secunderabad^{- 500 061}

¶17

Smt Vuppula^Sandhya, w/o Sri VuPPula^Ramulu, aged about 61 Years,^female, occ: business and Partner^of 1st defendant firm

¶18

H.No.6-3 -6t9/A,^{Anand nagar} Colony, Gandhi^{Tata nagar,} Near ZP office,^Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500^004.

¶19

Smt Gandem^JaYaLakshmi, W/o Sri Gandem^Mahesh, Aged about 46 Years,^female, villa no.31, Eshwaraiah^enclave, Sai Siddhartha^{School lane, Nagaram,} Dammaiguda village,^Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^dist

¶20

Sri Vuppula^Ramulu, S/o Sri VuPPula^{GoPal Kishan,} Aged about 63 Years,^male, Occ: business,^{H.No.6-3 -6t91 A,} Anand nagar ColonY,^Gandhi Tata nagar, Near^{ZP office,} Khairtabad, HYderabad -^{500 004.}

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the^Parties:

¶23

Sri G. Prabhakar^Sarma

Sri V. Ravinder

Exparte

(oA.No.21el202s)

Orders reserved^on	11.03.2026
Pronouncedon	13.03.2026
Uploaded in^websiteon	L3.03.2026

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for} recovery of a^{total sum of Rs.2,83,33,520/-(Rupees Two Crores} Eighty Three^{Lakhs ThirtyThree Thousand Five Hundred and} Twenty only)^{(Rs.1,2O,O8,g4Ol- +Rs'1-,63'24'580/-)with} interest @ 16.750lo^{p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA} till the date of^{realizationand in default for sale of mortgaged} propertiesandhypothecatedmovablesasmentionedintheschedules "A to E" to OA.

¶30

As^per the averments^{in the application,the ApplicantBank} states that^{the defendant No'1 is a partnership firm represented by its} partners / defendants^{no'2 to 4'Defendantno'2 is the son of} defendant^{no.3 and husbandof defendant no'5' Defendant no' 4 & 6} arewifeandhusbandrespectively.Thedefendantsavailedcashcredit of Rs.1.00 Crore^{and term loan of Rs'2'60 Crores on 25'05'2022} Defendantno'lrepresentedbydefendants2to4executedAgreement tion and defendants^{no.2 to 6 guaranteed the} ts no.2 & 5 created^{equitablemorqgageof} nt no.4 created equitable^{mortgage of}

¶31

(oA.No.219l2o2sl

¶32

schedule^\B" property by deposit of Regd sale deed^document no.L7937/20L9. Defendant no.6 created equitable mortgage^of Schedule C and D^properties by deposit of^{regd sale deed document} no.11395 /2021 dated 04.06.202t and document^{no. L246/1999.} Defendant no.1 firm hypothecated all the stocks,^{machinery,finished} and semi finished^{goods more fully described in schedule E to OA. It} is submitted by the Applicant bank that the^{Defendants availedthe} said loan facilities and failed to keep up the^{repayment schedule, as} such the account was classified^{as NPA and issuedlegal notice dated} 31.03.2025. Inspite of demands^{made by Applicantthe defendant has} not regularized the account, and the^{Applicantbank issued notices,} but the defendants did not come^{forward to repay the same.The total} claim of Applicant against defendants^{is of Rs.2,83,33,52O1'} (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Three Lakhs Thirty^{Three Thousand} Five Hundred and Twenty only)^{(Rs.Lt2O,O8,94Ol'+} Rs.1r63r24,5801-) with interest @^{16.750/o p.d with monthlyrests} from date of filing of OA till the date of^{realization.Hence the OA.}

¶33

The Defendant No.4 filed written^{statement and defendantno.6} adopted the same and denied the^{avermentsmade in OA. It is} submitted that the OA is barred^{by limitation. It is contendedthat the} i ::. Applicant-bg1k^"ob,!g.ineg signatures of^{defendants on blan k documents} i .,. -1.1.,l ?..r,i -j.j-".-' ;Ji, ,rand'"also^{f@$ed thci'fBocuments.It is further contendedthat the} ,,ii Ogfendbft llffiO|ffimpt;bd'the conditional^{orders in SA. L43/20256by}

(oA.No.219 /202sl.

depositing a sum of Rs.64 lakhs with the Applicant bank which was suppressed. Hence^prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶38

I have perused the documents^placed on record.

¶39

Heard the arguments.

¶40

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶41

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

¶42

ii) To what relief ?

¶43

Point No.i):

¶44

Mr. B. Rama Krishna Prasad, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the^liability of^the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.24 are marked through^{AW.1.Applicant} bank filed paft satisfaction memo stating that a sum^of Rs.1,29r23,5,581- was realized on L9,O1.2O26 by sale of schedule A^property.

¶45

Defendant No.4 and defendant no.6 examined themselves

¶46

as DW.1 and DW.2 and did not file any documents.

¶47

by the defendants. Even though the ined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 and

¶48

their evidence is in noway helpful to them.

¶49

(oA.No.219 /2o2sl

¶50

The defendants having taken the^plea that the applicant bank obtained signatures on blank documents, did not follow the^{RBI guidelinesand} that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to^{place any} substantial^proof to that effect. Moreover, a^perusal of^{the documents} exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all^{the relevant} documents are executed by the defendants^{in the normal course of} transaction. The defendants very^{vaguely contended that particulars} made in the OA are not correct. But as^{per the statementof accounts,} the defendants are liable to^pay the^{OA claim. Considering all the} circumstances, I am of opinion that^{the defense taken by the} defendants is not tenable.^{Hence the applicant bank is entitledto} claim the OA amount from defendants.^{Therefore,the OA claim} deserves to be allowed against^{the defendants.}

¶51

Point No.ii)

¶52

B. In the result, the^present Original^{applicationis allowed with costs as} under:

¶53

The Defendants are^jointly and severally^{liable to pay to ApplicantBank} a total sum of Rs.2r83r33,52$1-^{(RupeesTwo Crores Eighty} Three Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand^{Five Hundred and Twenty} only). (Rs.1r2O.O8,9491- +^{Rs.1,63,24,58;O/') with interest @} . .. ,! ,., .- . l.; .... ,"1:t. 10i/o p_;d from date of fling,. of OA till the^date of^{realizationLESS a} t, .' suint of Tttffifl,mf558#--'realized^{by sale of mortgagedschedule} "A'r propprty ; ',it'' d:.) /t ..,. ?,rr.,,-' " i{yr.',^' 6 ,t..,,]-:. ;..1..,.-.

¶54

(OA.No.219 /2O25't

¶55

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated "B to E" properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶56

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 6 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶57

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

¶58

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶59

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶60

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶61

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of March' 2026)

¶62

sdl-

¶63

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶64

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

,l:-.,f, - offip "$
,i"r}tr ffi
:d-, 73mBm
,:
. t t .,-,tt',tt .';. ' '" '. "'{-'^1

¶66

N,wfrry
v t o"(affi..

State Bank of India v. M/S. Irish Aqua LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Irish Aqua LLP

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Juluri Sai Krishna

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Sree Distributors

Canara Bank versus M/S. Indian Rice Depot

Canara Bank versus M/S. Next Plan Overseas Educational Consultancy

Canara Bank versus M/S. Narmada Powerloom Industry

State Bank of India versus Seliveri Suresh Babu