Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S. Addas Agri Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd.

DRT5 Jan 2026OA/315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by UCO Bank for recovery of Rs. 2.05 crores as a loan account became non-performing. The Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount with future interest and costs but failed to cross-examine the bank witness or substantiate their denial.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,05,33,811 with future interest; OA approved; Recovery Certificate issued.

Uco Bank versus M/S. Addas Agri Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE OsTH DAY OF ]ANAUARY,²⁰²⁶

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^NO: 3t5^{OF 2022}

¶5

M/S UCO BANK, Malakpet Branch, at H.No. 76-2-705128, Mumtaz College Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036, Represented by its chief Manager

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/S ADDAS AGRi BIO TECH PVT.^LTD. A private limited company having Its registered office at H.No. 5-9-22/4/8, Hill Fort Road^No.4. Adarsh nagar, Hyderabad - 500^063, Represented by its Managing Director Sri Male Dharaneedhar^Reddy

¶9

SRI MALE DHARANEEDHAR^REDDY Son of M. Chinna Reddy aged^{about 47} Years, Occupation: business,^{resident of} H.No.6/466-28, Sankara^puram, Chinna^chowk, Kadapa - 516 002 AND H.No. 5-9-22/4/8, Hill Fort Road No.4, Adarsh nagar, Hyderabad - 500 06 AND flat^{No' 403,} Sun Sree Residency, Sy.^{No. 131, Khajaguda,} Near Delhi Public School, Seri^lingampally, Ranga Reddy District

¶10

SRI MALE VENKATA^{GIRIDHARREDDY} Son of M. Chinna^{Reddyaged about} 46 years, occupation: business, Resident of H. No. 6/466-28, Sankara^puram, Chinna^chowk, Kadapa - 516 002 AND H.No. 5-9-2214/8, Hill Fort Road^No.4, Adarsh nagar, Hyderabad -^{500 063} Flat No. 403, Sun Sree^{Residency,,".^} W*

¶11

OA.No.315/2022

¶12

¶13

Sy. No. 131, Khajag uda, Near Delhi Public School, Seri^lingampally, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

... Defendants

¶15

Cou nsel for the Applicant

¶16

:lvlr. M. Keshava Rao

¶17

Counsel for the Defendants

¶18

: Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy

¶19

-: (18_D_E_3:-

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA for the recovery of a} sum of Rs.2,05,33,811/-^{towardsLoanAccount No. 16280510000175} from defendants^jointly and severally^{with futureinterest@ 11.45olo} p.a. from 20.05.2022 tilt the date of realisatlon and^{sale of oA} scheduled^proPerties.

¶21

The case of applicant bank,ⁱⁿ brief,^{is that the defendants} initially availed a Cash Credit facility of^{Rs.25lakhs in 2009, which} was gradually enhanced up to^{Rs. 180 lakhsby 2016. Defendant No.1} is the^principal borrower and^{defendants 2 and 3 are guarantorswho} deposited original title^{deeds for creatingequitable mortgageagainst} the enhanced limits. However,^{DefendantNo.1defaultedin} repayment, leading to the loan account's^{classification as Non-} Performing Asset^(NPA) as of 31.03.2021^{per RBI guidelines.} Reminders and statutory^notices under^{Section13(2) of SARFAESI} Act were issued to all defendants,^{in spite of which the accountwas} not regularised. Consequently, the^{applicant constrained to file this} application.

¶22

The defendants filed Written Statement^{denying theOA} averments including^{personal guaranteesand creation of mortgage.} In spite of several requests and reminders the^{applicant bankfailed} ./,/w.^\ t_l/^{-1d\ -}

¶23

oA,No.315/2022

¶24

to renew the loan account and^{sanctionlimits under CGECLSas per} RBI^guidelines and the Central Government.^{The claimof the bank is} exorbitant and illegal without considering the^{payments. The OA is} not within limitation, no cause of action^{arose and hence liable to be} dismissed as not maintainable.

¶25

In order to^prove its case, The^{Applicant Bank examinedK.R.R.} Rajyalakshmi, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked^{17 documents} through her as Ex. A.1 to^{Ex. A.17.}

¶26

To substantiate their^pleas, defendants^{examined2nd defendant} N4. Dharanidhar Reddy as DW-1 and^{markedno documents.}

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the^{applicant. Defendants'} right of advancing arguments^{was forfeited} on^{10.10.2025 Perused} the material^placed on record.

¶28

According to learned counsel appearing^{for the applicantbank,} defendants having availed the Cash Credit^{facility and renewed} facitity, failed to discharge the^liability in^{spite of repeatedrequests} The outstanding amount due from the^{defendantsworks out to Rs.} 2,05,33,8f7/- as on 19-05-2022.^{The claim} of^{the Applicant Bank is} amply^proved through the evidence^{of the AW-1 and Exs.A.1to A.17} and accordingly OA may be allowed^{togetherwith interest and costs.}

¶29

The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶30

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled^{For the OA} claim against the^Defendants and^{the OA schedule} propefty as prayed?

¶31

frry*

¶32

OA,No.315/2022

¶33

Availment of credit facility and^{its renewal is evidentfrom} Exs.A.1 to A.6, defendants^{2 and 3 being guarantors is evident from} Ex.A.7 and creation of^{mortgageis evident from Exs.A8 to A.12.} Except denying the averments^{of the application,the defendantshave} not chosen to mark any documents^{to substantiatetheir pleas nor} have they chosen to cross-examine^{AW-1to disprove the authenticity} of Exs.A.1 to A.17. It^{is settledlaw that mere denialwithout} substantiation is of^{no avail. Underthese circumstances, the evidence} of AW-1 coupled with recitals in^{Exs.A.1toA.17remalns} unchallenged and un-rebutted and^{accordingly OA deserves to be} allowed holding that defendants^{are jointlyand severally liable to pay} the balance OA claim with^{future interestand costs.}

¶34

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo. 315/2022is} allowed with costs, as under:-

¶35

i) The defendants 1 to 3 are^jointly and^{severallyliableto} pay to the appllcant bank a sum of Rs. 2,05,33,811/with future interests @11.450/o simple,^{from the date of} Application till the date of realization;

¶36

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage^of properties described in the schedules A and B annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its balance dues;

¶37

iii)the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and^properties of defendants 1 to 3^for reallsation of its balance dues; and

¶38

iv)the applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶39

The AoDlicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the oate of ttris order.OKt\

¶40

OA.No.375/2022

¶41

¶42

L2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concerned and} upload in the official website.

¶44

(Typed to my dictation by the Steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the Of Aay of )anuary, 2026).

¶45

$po'r (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Uco Bank v. M/S. Addas Agri Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S. Addas Agri Bio Tech 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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Igenix Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Avula Ayyaswamy

M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Mr. M. Varada Reddy

Canara Bank versus M/S. Optrobox

State Bank of India versus M/S. Laxmi-E-Mobility

Udayagiri Eswaramma versus Karur Vysya Bank