Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Valuepro International Private Limited

DRT30 Jun 2026OA/535/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Drugs Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank for issuance of a recovery certificate against borrowers who defaulted on a sales invoice funding credit facility, granting reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs 4,19,40,038.74 plus further interest at 12% per annum from filing date to realization, recoverable jointly and severally from defendants.

Hdfc Bank versus Valuepro International Private Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.535/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

HDFC bank LTD Branch office at: No.7 & 7/1, 2^nd Floor, Essel Chambers, Lalbagh Road, Richmond Circle, Bengaluru – 560 027

¶6

Represented by its Senior Manager Mr. Srivathsan Varadhan …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. Value Pro International Private Limited Represented by its Directors Regd. Officer: No. 1514, K no. 1318, 1^st sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore – 560 102

¶9

Mr. Santhosh Kumar Singh S/o. Shesh Bahadur Singh Aged about 50 years Director, M/s. Value Pro International Private Limited B-803, Amoda Valmark, Kammanahalli, Main road, opp. Meenakshi temple, Bangalore – 560 068

¶10

Mr. Vijaysekhar Kasala S/o. Kasala K Shetty Aged about 46 years Director, M/s. Value Pro International Private Limited No. 118, 5^th cross, 3^rd main, Duo height layout, Begur, Bangalore – 560 068

¶11

OA-535/2022

¶12

¶13

Mr. Sanjib Kumar Banik Fathers name not known Aged about 50 years Director, M/s. Value Pro International Private Limited Flat no.303, building no.10, Shree Shaswat, Mira-Bhayandar Road, Near pleasant par road, thane – 401 107

¶14

Mr. Vishnu Moorthy Galla S/o. Rama Naidu Aged about 47 years Director, M/s. Value Pro International Private Limited No.80, 4^th cross, duo height layout, Begur road, Bangalore - 560 068 ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : K S Venkataramana Defendants : Ex parte

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs 4,19,40,038.74/- (Rupees Four Crores Nineteen Lakhs Forty Thousand and Thirty-Eight and Paisa Seventy-Four only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed a sales invoice funding credit facility of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Only).

¶20

OA-535/2022

¶21

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents along with deed of Hypothecation.

¶23

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶24

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶25

Despite, entering appearance/filing vakalat, no written statement filed by the defendants. Hence, the chance for filing written statement stands closed on 09.11.2023.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶30

claim as against the defendants?

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

OA-535/2022

¶33

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains

¶36

unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶38

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is

¶40

availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at

¶41

by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view

¶42

that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 12.00% (simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.535/2022 stands allowed,

¶44

OA-535/2022

¶45

¶46

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. Rs 4,19,40,038.74/- (Rupees Four Crores Nineteen Lakhs Forty Thousand and Thirty-Eight and Paisa Seventy-Four only) with further interest @12.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶47

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶48

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶50

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶52

OA-535/2022

¶53

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶54

terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT

¶55

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶56

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of June, 2026].

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1 Rajesh Antony, S/o. V A Joseph, Senior Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Exhibits	DESCRIPTION
A1	Request letter dated 12.03.2020
A2	Sanction letter dated 29.02.2020
A3	Continuing master indemnity deed dated 16.03.2020
A4	Undertaking cum indemnity agreement dated 16.03.2020
A5	Letter of guarantee both dated 16.03.2020
A6	Deed of hypothecation dated 10.06.2020
A7	Statement of accounts duly certified by the manager along with certificate under section 2A(b) and 2A(c) of the bankers’ books of evidence act, 1891 (as amended)
A8 Witness	Notice dated 01.02.2022 Examined for the Defendants: -Nil -
List of D	ocuments Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶64

Sd/-

Hdfc Bank v. Valuepro International Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Valuepro International Private Limited

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Anugya Enterprises

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/s Maa Sharde Agritech

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Balajee Coal Depot

Manoj Kumar Sharma versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Ram Bhagat Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Niraj Marble and Tiles and Ors.