Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S. City Grand Dhotel

DRT16 Jan 2026OA/425/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT, Hyderabad allowed the Originating Application filed by Indian Bank against the Defendants. The bank established its claim based on term loans and guarantees. The court held the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with future interest and costs, and authorized proceeding against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to be jointly and severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.4,92,14,012.20 with future interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and other assets.

Indian Bank versus M/S. City Grand Dhotel — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No. 425 OF 2025

Between :

lndian Bank,

Lashkar Bazar Branch, 6-1-38, Lashkar Bazaar,

¶8

Warangal - 506 001.

¶9

Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶10

Applicant

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

M/s.City Grand Hotel, Rep. by its Partners,

¶13

Mr. Kandakatla Nageshwara Rao

¶14

And Mrs. Kandakatla Neeraja

¶15

H.No. 15-2-64, SVP Road, Rangampet,

¶16

Opp. : KIA Showroom,

¶17

Warangal- 506 07, TS.

¶18

Mr. Kandakatla Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Late Mallaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ:

¶19

R/o. H.No. 11-24-2713,
MV Colony,
Road No. 1, *
Deshaipet Road, *
1E a
Warangal- 506 006, TS. r:7
6r$
+,. g
.'rir:.rt
\r--=.,:.-

¶20

(oA. No. a2sl202s)

¶21

Mrs. Kandakatla Neeraja, Wo. Kandakatla Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, Female, R/o. H.No. 11-24-2713, MV Colony, Road No. 1, Deshaipet Road, Warangal - 506 006, TS. Counsel for the parties : For The Applicant Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 09.01.2026 Pronounced on 12.01.2026 Upload in website on 16.01.2026

¶22

Defendants

¶23

ORDER

¶24

rt Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for of a total sum of Rs.4,92,14,012.20 Ps. (Rupees Four Crc Ninety Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand TweIVe and Twenty Only) i.e a sum of -

¶25

(OA. No. 42sl2025)

¶26

(i) Rs. 1,06,57,007.20 Ps. with future interesl @ 14.OSo/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of rea lization.

¶27

(ii) Rs. 27,08,541.00 Ps. with future [email protected]% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of rea lization.

¶28

(iii) Rs. 66,33,512.00 Ps. with future interest @ 14.OSo/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of rea lization.

¶29

(iv) Rs. 57,61,162.00 Ps. with future interest @ 14.05% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶30

(v) Rs. 2,34,53,790.00 Ps. with future interest @^14.05%p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶31

as mentioned in

¶32

(oA. No.425l2o2sl

¶33

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a Partnership Firm represented by its Partners Defendants No. 2 and 3 availed Term Loan facilities of Rs.1.26 Crores with interest @10.40o/o p.a with monthly rests repayable in 73 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,72,6031and Rs.40.00 Lakhs with interest @9.25o/o p.a with monthly rests repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,27,6651Rs.78.00 Lakhs with interest @1 0.40% p.a with monthly rests repayable in 73 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,06,840/and executed Term Loan Agreement dated 10.08.2023 and Agreement of Hypothecation dated 16.08.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Term Loan of Rs.2.48 Crores with interest 10.40% p.a with monthly rests repayable in 120 equated monthly installments of Rs.2,21,4291- and Rs.62.OO Lakhs with interest @10/0% p.a with monthly rests repayable in 76 equated monthly installments of Rs.81,579/- and executed Term Loan Agreement dated 14.09.2023 and Agreement of Hypothecation dated 14.09.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood as a guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 02.09.2023. The Defendants created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned , , Mernorandum :' -.of Deposit of riile Deeds dated 30.0g.2023 in i ,..,' [; . .favor r$fithe Apblicant ,'i Bank and Defendants deposited original i, =, 1^{''J ,,} ii''.r Reoistered. Satb ia Deed in favor of the Applicant Bank . After ;.i.,t q.i -. ':. 'a,.'.tt 'i!.. .'' t' .availing,the : _,. lo-an facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms 'l;;.,,.^' ..r.^{.r' r"} 4 ..',..,*..',.'

¶34

'a,.'.tt 'i!..'i!.. : 'l;;.,,.^' ..',..,*..',.'

¶35

(OA. No. 42sl202s)

¶36

of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 01 .04.2025 and issued Demand notice dated 02.04.2025 under section 13(2) ot the SARFAEST Act, 2OO2 to the defendants. The Applicant Bank also proceeded against the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and issued various notices to the Defendants lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶37

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 15.01.2026.

¶38

¶39

Sri. Mopuri Subba Rao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.33.

¶40

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶41

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶42

¶43

7- Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant eant, RW.t, officiat of the Appticant Bank was exqmipgd and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to ; l',.^_l]' A.'33,,b\iew of the above, I hotd that the Applicant Bank has t q'r\ /, establisheNheir craim made in the oA against the Defendants '" ll "^rn)s 3ll

¶44

"q.:,1

¶45

(oA. No. 42sl2o2s)

¶46

and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶47

ln the result, the present oA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶48

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.4,92,1 4,012.20 ps. (Rupees Four Grores Ninety Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand rwelve and Paise Twenty only) i.e a sum of -

¶49

(i) Rs. 1,06,57,007.20 Ps. with future interest @ 14.0s% p.a from the date of this application tiil the date of realization.

¶50

(ii) Rs. 27,08,54{.00 Ps. with future interest @ 11.ooo/o p.a from the date of this application til! the date of realization.

¶51

(iii) Rs. 66,33,512.00 ps. with future interest @ 14.0s% p.a from the date of this application till the date of reatization.

¶52

of this application till the date of realization.

¶53

¶54

Ps. with future interest @ 14.OSo/o p.a application till the date of realization.

¶55

(OA. No. 42512025')

¶56

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the schedules of property ttem 1 and 2 to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶57

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 and 3 and properties of Defendant No. 1 firm towards rearization of the debt due.

¶58

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the oA.

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

14.

¶62

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on '.tan, 2026)

¶63

sd/(G. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Bank v. M/S. City Grand Dhotel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S. City Grand Dhotel

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

A Ramesh Babu versus M S Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Dharmvir Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Chollangi Surendra Kumar

Smt Kethavath Neelamma versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

p srinivasulu versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

State Bank of India versus Basa Technologies Private Limited