Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers

DRT20 Mar 2026OA/475/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application for recovery against five defendants who defaulted on term loan, cash credit, and GECL accounts. The court held primary borrowers liable for specific loans and guarantors/mortgagors for other facilities.

What did the court decide?

decree for payment of principal amounts plus future interest of 7.50% p.a. secured by hypothecation and mortgage of specified assets.

Bank of India versus M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

iN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE^{2OTHDAYOF MARCH,2026}

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO. 475 OF 2024}

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bank of India Khairatabad Branch Ground Floor^{PTI Building} A.c. Guards, Masab^Tank Hyderabad-500004. Rep by constituted Attorney. ... .Applicant.

¶6

And

¶7

lvl/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet^Polymers A^partnershlp Firm - ReP bY^its Partners - lYrs. Balerao^{Varalakshmi &} Dendhu Swetha, Regd. Office Plot No.C-s, Road No.7, IDA UPPaI District Medchal.

¶8

lvlrs. Balerao Vara la kshmi Wo^Balerao Shiva^Kumar H. No. 2-24-104/1 Lakshmi Nagar, IDA Uppal Hyderabad-500039, T.S.

¶9

Mrs. Dendh i Swetha W/o Sri Dendhi Narasimha Reddy Flat No. 306, Aakruthi Township Boduppal, Hyderabad-500092.

¶10

Balerao Shiva Shankar s/o sri vittal Reddy H. No. 2-24-704/1 Lakshmi Nagar, IDA Uppal Hyd era bad- 500039, T.S.OY*

¶11

¶12

oA.475/2024

¶13

Sri Dendhi Narasimha Reddy

¶14

s/o D. Sai Reddy, Flat No.306 Aakruthi Township Boduppal, Hyderabad-500092.

¶15

..... Defenda nts.

¶16

Counsel for Applicant lvlr. K.V. Nageswara Rao. Counsel for Defendants lYr. M. Surya prakash.

¶17

:: oRDER ::

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,92,06,356.16ps _ i.e., Rs.1,59,82,485.84ps towards Term Loan account, Rs.22,84,131.49ps towards Cash Credit Loan account and Rs.9,39,73g.83ps towards GECL account from the defendants 1 to 5 along with future jnterest @11.35o/o, 77.75o/o and 9.25olo respectively per annum with monthly rests and penal interest @ 2o/o from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule assets.

¶19

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are: Defendant No.1 availed credit facilities to a tune of Rs.1,60,00,000/- (Rs.1.40 crore under Term Loan and Rs.20 lakhs under Cash Credit) vide sanction letter dated 27.f2.2}7g. Defendants 1 to 3 executed all necessary loan documents for both the loans. Whereas defendants 4 and 5 stood as guarantors to the cash credit loan of Rs.2O lakh. The Term loan account was restructured under a supplemental agreement dated 02.72.2021. Defendants 1 to 3 availed another loan of Rs.20 lakh under an agreement dated 30.09.2020. Defendants 2 and 3 offered OA B to D schedule properties belonoino to ttu-. , /4'$\

¶20

oa,47sl2024

¶21

them as a^{security to the cashcredit facility and GECLfacility'} Defendants did^{not maintainthe loan account as per the terms} of the agreement^{The accounthas been classifiedas NPA on} 25.09.2023.^{A demand notice under SARFAESIAct hasbeen} issued in respect^{Cash Credit and GECL loans Thereafter'} applicant issued^{a legal notice dated 18'042024 to the} defendants 1^{to 5 to clear the outstanding dues ln view of} there being no^{realisation of dues, applicant filed the present} OA for recovery^{of dues fromthe defendants1 to 5'}

¶22

Except entering^{appearancethroughMr' M Surya Prakash'} Advocate, defendants^{did not pursue the matterfurther'} Accordingly, their^{right to file written statement was forfeited} on 30.04.2025.

¶23

Applica nt Bank examined^{T. Jagannadham, chlef Manager as} AW- 1 and marked 60 documents^{through her as Ex A'1 to Ex'} A.60.

¶24

Defendants right of^{adducingevidence wasforfeited for non-} representation^{vide docket order dated 04.02.2026'}

¶25

Heard learned counsel for^{the applicantbank. Defendants'right} of advancing arguments^{forfeited on 77.02.2026for non-} representation. Perused^{the materialplaced on record.}

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the^{applicant bank would submit} that the defendants not only^{committeddefault in repayment of} Ioans but also failed to^pursue the^{OA either by filing written} statement or adducing evidence^{or advancingarguments except} filing Vakalat of Advocate^1.4. Surya^{Prala;sh Accordingly,} ffi'x

¶27

oA.475/2024

¶28

applicant bank proved its claim against the defendants unopposed. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA claim in the interest of justice.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶30

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the OA claim against the Defendants and the OA schedule assefsZ

¶31

As stated supra, defendants did not choose either to file the written statement or adduce evidence or advance arguments. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.60 marked through AW.1 remains unchailenged and un_rebutted. As per the OA pleadings, defendant No.1 availed three loans. Of the three loans, defendants 4 and 5 extended guarantee deed for the cash credit facirity avaired under roan agreement dated 28.L2.2078 only. Similarly, the OA B to D schedule properties were mortgaged against the Cash Credit and GECL accounts onry. Therefore, the riabirity of defendants 4 and 5 cannot be extended to other two loans. Similarly, the mortgage rights are limited to be limited to the Cash Credit and GECL dues only. Hence, I hold that defendants 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay the claim towards the Term Loan account and GECL account and defendants 1 to 5 are liable to pay the claim towards the Cash Credit account made by the Applicant Bank in the O.A with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.475/2024 is allowed as under: - 6f,ry,'t

¶33

oA.47512024

¶34

defendants^{1io 3 are jolntlyand severally}

¶35

i) liable to PaY^{a total sumof} (Rs.1,59,82,485.84

¶36

Rs.7 ,69 ,22,223.94Ps towards^{Term Loan account and} Rs.9,39,738.14^{towardsGECL Loan account)} and defendants^{1 to 5 are jointly and} severallY^{liable to} pay sum^of Rs.22,84,131.49^{towardsCash Credit account} to the applicant^{bank with future interest} @7.50o/o^{per annum simplefrom the date of} application^{till the date of realization;} the OA^{claim issecured bY way of}

¶37

ii) hypothecation^{of OA A-scheduteassetsand} the applicant^{bank is entitled to proceed} against^{the same for recovery of its dues;} the OA claim^{in respect of Cash Credit and}

¶38

iii) GECL facilities^{is securedby way of mortgage} of OA B to^{D schedulesof properties and the} applicant^{bank is entitledto proceed against} the same^{for recovery of its dues to that} extent;

¶39

iv) the applicant^{bank is also entitled to proceed} against the^{person and propertiesof the} defendants 1^{to 3 towardsthe TermLoan} Account and GECL^{Account and defendants1} to 5 towards Cash^{Credit accountfor} realization of its^{respectlvedues;and}

¶40

v) the appricant bunki, *i\W#,"o,t^.

¶41

¶42

o A.475/2024

¶43

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶44

L2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Web portal,

¶46

(Dictated to the steno, sianed ar oay ot March,2026).^- td pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20rr,

¶47

(RA]qESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers

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

Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. Mutyala Chandrakala

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Cns Labs Private Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Morgula Kiran

J Venkata Ramana Moorthy versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Keshapaga Anjaneyulu

Bank of Baroda versus Varikuppala Srikanth