Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Naskon Associates

DRT1 Sept 2026OA/51/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application filed by a bank for recovery of dues totaling approx Rs. 99 lakhs against five respondents including an LLP and its partners. The Tribunal rejected contentions regarding liability of non-signatory partners and clubbing of loan accounts, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable with interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 99,09,479.07 with 18% p.a. interest; claim secured by sale of hypothecated vehicle; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Naskon Associates — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABA'D DATED THIS THE 1sT DAy oF SEpTEMBER, 2026 , , , , PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^{(Hons.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 51 OF²⁰²⁴

¶3

M/s. HDFC BANK LTD., 1-10-60/3, 3rd Floor, 44 Suryodaya ComPlex,^BegumPet, Hyderabad-5000^I 6 Rep: By Its Autho rzed Signatory

¶4

'. ' ' '^Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

NASKON ASSOCIATES^LLP Rep by its Managing^Director Mr. Prasen Kumar^Puvala Office at: B-5-2 tl^L9l3B, MallapallY/Ba ndlaguda^Village Hyderabad^- 500005

¶7

Age: 45 Years Occ:^Business

¶8

Mrs. Banda ShilPa W/o. Pandurangarao^Banda R/o. Plot No.1235,^{Road No.60,} lubilee Hills,^{l,lear Poojitha School,} lubilee Hills, IlYderabad^{- 500033} Age: 45 Years Occ:^Business

¶9

AIso at

¶10

MTS. BANDA SHILPA Cl o. t-2-6}6l80/77,^{LowerTankbund,} Bhimanagar ColonY,^IndiraPark, Hyderabad^- 500080

¶11

Mr. Hari Shanker^Bandharam, S/o. Vaiktrntam^Bandharam R/o. 1- 12.1132, Plot^{No.174, VSf Colonv,} Nachararn, HYderabad^{- 500076} Age: 41^'1zs3rs Occ:^Business

¶12

Mr. RangareddY^Sadineni, S/o. Hanumatha^ReddY Ow,s

¶13

OA No.5U2024

¶14

2of7

¶15

a/(.\ 10-2.318liIA/C, Flat No,F1, Sri Vijaya Vitha, Indira Nagar, Asif Nagar, Vijayanagar colony Hyderabad-500057 Age: 67 Years, Occ: Business

¶16

, 5. Mrs. Puvvala Suman, W/o. Prasen Kumar Puvvala

¶17

. AQe: 41. Years, Occ: Business R/o. Plot No 509A, Road No 86 Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, Flyderabad - 500033

¶18

... Defendants

¶19

Corrnsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defendants

¶20

Dr. M.P. Kashyap Mr. M. Naga Deepak

¶21

:: ORDER ::

¶22

,,, ,i; 1. ' Tf. Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 99,09,479.07 ps from the Defendants 1to 5 jointly and severally with future interest G) 18o/o p.a. with monthly rest from the date of application till the, date of realisation along with costs, and in default sale of hypothecation of vehicle.

¶23

.j 2. The averments of the Applicant Bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that Defendant No.1, being the borrower, Defendant No.2 being coapplicant and Defendant Nos.3 & 4 being partner, and Defendant No.5, being the legal heir, had availed business and used car premium loan aggregating to Rs.1,09,64,254/-, secured by hypothecation of vehicle. However, defendants committed persistent defaults in repayment of the loan instalments, resulting r in the loan account being classified as a NpA. Thereafter, the applicant bank issued a loan recall notice dated L8.L2.2023 calling upon the defendants to discharge the outstanding dues. Despite service of the said notice, the defendants faited ," ,Zryffaccount,

¶24

'r..', i. i..:;.^:..;,

¶25

OA No.51/2 o14

¶26

3of7

¶27

compelling the applicant bank to file the^present OA seeking recovery of tilre i outstanding dues.

¶28

Defendants filed a Written Statement,^{contesting the maintainability} of the OA. The Defendants contend that,^{even according to the Applicantls} own evidence, the outstanding under the^{Business Loan Account;is} Rs.9,51,301.19/-, whereas the^{major portion of the claim, amountingto} Rs.89,58,177.88/-,^pertains to the^{Used Car Premium Loan Account.It is} submitted that the liability^{under each loan account has to be examined} independently with reference^{to the documents executedby the respective} parties and that mere clubbing of both accounts^{in one o.A. cannotr'ender} all the Defendants^{jointly and severally liable. As regards DefendantNos'3} and 4, who are^{partners/designatedpartners of Defendant No.1 LLP, it is} contended that^{they are not signatories to the loan documentsanci that,in} view of Sections 3,27^{and 28 of the Limited LiabilityPartnershipAct, 2008,} the obligations of^{the LLP cannot be fastened upon its partners merely by} virtue of their status,^{in the absenceof any personal guarantee; wrongful} act or statutory^{provision imposing such liability.Relianceis plaied on tfie} decisions in Sahil^{Arora v. Commissioner of Excise, GOvernmentof NCT of} Dethi & Ors.,^{PVR Ltd. v. Proteus Ventures LLP & Ors', SunilBharti Mittal v'} cBI,⁽²⁰¹⁵⁾ 4^{SCC 609 and sanjayDutt & ors. v. state of Haryana & Air.} As regards Defendant^{No.2, it is contendedthat she was not a party to the} documents relating^{to the used Car PremiumLoan Account and that,} althoughtheApplicarltreliesuponaLoanProposalFormdated?o072o2t in respect of the^{Business Loan, she disputes its execution, contending thbt} she was undergoing^{search and seizure proceedings by thc Directoratef,f} Enforcement on^{the said date,as evidenced by the searchwarrant,seizuie} .i. Memo and Panchanama.^{As regards Defendant No.1, it is admitted that the} Business Loan of^{Rs.25,00,000/- was sancgonedand Rs.24,43,06ri-wds} disbursed, with^Rs.9,51 ,3Ot'Lgl-^{stated to be} -^{outstanding;: hciwever'} t ffi^t

¶29

OA No.5t12024

¶30

4of7

¶31

liability under the Used Car Premium Loan is disputed on the ground that the relevant Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement was exccuted by Late Mr. Prasen Kitmar Puvvala in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the LLP, and that Defendant No.1 neither received consideration nor participatcd in the said transaction. Accordingly, defendants pray for dismissal of the OA.

¶32

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Ms. Sumaya Shaik, t.cgal Manager as AW-1 and marked 5 documents through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-5.

¶33

In order to substantiate their defence, Defendant No.2, Mrs. Banda Shilpa, examined herself as well as on behalf of Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 as DW-1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.B.1 and 8.2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the applicant reported no oral arguments. Heard learned counsel for the defendants. Perused the written arguments filed by the applicant and also perused the material placed on record. I:I,:,

¶35

7' ,^{The learned counselfor the applicant submits} that the credit facilities availed by Defendant No.1 were duly secured by the vehicle hypothecated in favour of the Bank and that the defendants had executed the requisite Loan Agreements, Deeds of Hypothecation and Guarantee Documents. It was submitted that, despite availing the facilities, the defendants committed persistent defaults, pursuant to which the hypothecated vehicle was repossessed and sold and the sale proceeds appropriated towards the loan accounts, leaving a balance outstanding. As regards Defendant Nos.3 and 4, it was contended that their liability arises from the documents executed by them in connection with the loan transactiqn and cannot be Liability avofded merely by relying upon Sections 27 and 28 of %{ed ; Q$r,*

;

oA No .5t/zoz+

5of7

| ': i, l Partnership Act, 2008. Accordingly, the learned counsel sought allowing of,i the O.A. with interest and costs.

¶40

i;,, 8. Learned counsel for the defendants reiterate^{the contentof its written} statement and submits that^{even as per the Applicant's evidence,the} ':ir' outstanding under the^{BusinessLoan Accountis only Rs.9,51,30li,19'/1',} whereas the major^{portion of the claim pertainsto the Used ,Ca,r qreimium} Loan Account, and that the^{liabilitiesunderthe two loan accountscannot, be} clubbed so as to^{fastenjoint and severalliability upon all the Defqrldapts.} -l;t.' As regards Defendant^{Nos.3 and 4, it was contended that tliley af'e} ,tl partners/designated^partners of^{Defendant No.1 LLP and are not Sig.na,to.rigs} or^{personalguarantorsto the loan documents and, therefore,theiri liability} cannot be fastened^{merely by virtue of their status, in view of Scctions3,} 27 and 28 of^{the Limited Liability PartnershipAct, 2008. It wasl frlrther} contended that^{DefendantNr..2 was not a party to the documi:n{slr,etatlihg} to the Used Car^{premiuml.oan and disputes execution of the Loan nropSsal} i^.. ; tl.i Form relied upon^{by the Applicantin respect of the Busincss Loa,n.'lAs} regards Defendant^{No.1, while the Business Loan transaction'andlthe} outstanding amount^{were substantiallyadmitted, liability unilcritnel, Used} Car^{premiumLoan was disputed on the ground that the relevarrt agredmeht} was executed by^{Late Mr. prasen Kumar Puvvala in his individual cdpb:city} and not on behalf^{of the LLp. Accordingly, the learned c(,r'ns'ill' sought}

¶41

The point that^{;lrises for cor;sideraLi<'ln is:-}

¶42

'' .^'.1ili? ,i WhethertheAppticantBankisentitledforthe against the^{Defendantsand hypothecatedvehicle?} ' : t'i, ,I

¶43

The Applicant^{has relied upon two distinct loan facilities,} namely rttiie Business Loan and^{the Used Car Premium Loan. As reflecterl} 'n [-Y.A5, d:n :r ffi"x

¶44

OA No.5L/2024

¶45

6of7

¶46

amoqnt of Rs.9,51,30t.t91- is outstanding under the Business Loan l.i,l:,i. I Acqount.artd^{Rs.B9,5B,t77.BB/- under} the Used Car Premium Loan Account. ;:it lhg liabilitics under the respective loan facilities are established from Ex.A2 i,i' [o^{Ex,A5. The hypothecatedvehicle bearing} Registration No. TS09FL6666, t, ;eg{stered^{in the name of Defendant No.1-NaskonAssociatesLLP, with the} !iiAppliqant tlank shown as financier, further establishes the nexus of i:pefendant No.1 with the vehicle finance transaction. The Loan-cumir; f-l,ypottiecation^{Agreements bearing the stamp} of^Defendant No.l-LLp, read lrith^{the, rcspective loan proposalsand hypothecation documents,establish} [!e;",Qorroyving^{transactionand the obligations arising therefrom. The} befqnpq evif,ence, namely Ex.81 and Ex.82, comprising the Search Warrant [pO^{qun.hpnama proceedings of the Directorate} of Enforcement, does not ii'' fnatqr:ially i.:1i,.'^{rebut the said documents,} as the said^proceedings relate to the Feqfg?^{conducted in connection with the investigation} concerning Mr. it/upp?lapati i'.t'^{Satish Kumar and do not, by themselves,} establish nonpxqcution or invalidity of the loan documents relied upon by the Applicant. ilr,

¶47

lf t,'.,^O ,^{.The documentson recordfurther establish that Defendant} No.2 has i:pigned i the relevant loan documents and has undertaken obligations [herreunder.^{DefendantNos.3 and} 4, being^{partners/designated} partners of Defendant No.1, are connected with the borrowing transaction undertaken It,;pV tne' LLP in the course of its business. The loan documents bearing the btamp of Defendant No.I-LLP, read with the respective loan proposals and hypothecation documents, establish the borrowing transaction and the bbligations arising therefrom. Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfied that the l-, $pplicant^{Bank has successfullyestablished} its claim. Hence, Defendant Nos.t to 5 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the O.A. claim to the l.l Applicant Bank together with future interest and costs, in accordance with iu*. l'r' lXtwq..-, iii:rii i' : U#'\

¶48

7 of 7

¶49

In the result, the present Original Application No.5L/2024 is rallotvedi iili:!l:!l as under:^- t'i

¶50

iili:!l:!l t'i

¶51

(i) The Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are^jointly and severally liable 'r,i

¶52

to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.^gg,Og,.47g OZ ps with future interest rate @ 9o/o p.a. simple from, the date of application till the date of realization;

¶53

(ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecationl od vehicle as describecl in Schedules annexed to ttre OA andi l

¶54

applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same:fol: ':

¶55

realisation of dues; l

¶56

(iii) the applicant is entitled to proceed against tlr,-- peibon and properties of the defendants for realization of itS dues; and :!

¶57

(iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs;

¶58

Menro within 2 weeks fromI 12. The Applicant Bank is dirccted to file Cost tl the date of receipt of this Order.

¶59

I ,i'

¶60

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶61

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

¶62

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the opcn court on this the L" day of September,2026l

¶63

/w"#

¶64

ESIi'/AR KOTHE) PRESIDii{(; OI-FICER ".1'i't'l,,.

¶65

oA 5L/24

¶66

20.07 .2026

¶67

Ms. V Babita representing MPK counsel for applicant reported no oral arguments but filed written reply arguments,, copy given. For orders, call on 12.08.2026. r

¶68

P. O.

¶69

12.08.2026 orders not^{passed due to heavy bench work. For orders, call} on 01 .09.2026. :

¶70

P.O.

¶71

0 1.09.2026 Orders pronounced, vide separate sheets. In the result OA.No.5t/2024 is allowed with costs. Issue Recovery Certificate accordi n^g ly 0w# -/ ,P.O.

Hdfc Bank v. Naskon Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Naskon Associates

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

Mdh Motors Private Limited versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Nagella Rama Krishna Reddy versus Idbi Bank

Lakky reddy Rajashekar Reddy versus Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Maneesha Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus Narayana Reddy

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Manikanta Agencies