Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Agro Chem Industries

DRT23 Apr 2026OA/631/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs. 2.34 crore from defaulting borrowers, secured by title deeds and hypothecation, following the forfeiture of the defendants' right to file a written statement or adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 2.34 crore with future interest at 12.50% simple from 04.01.2025; Recovery Certificate issued; costs awarded.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Agro Chem Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT^HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23'd DAY OF April, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 631 OF²⁰²⁵

¶4

M/s UNION BANK OF INDIA Mehdipatnam Branch-2, 80854, # 70-3-16l12, Gemini Building, Opp Super Bazar, MehdiPatnam Branch-2, Hyderabad- 500028, T.S

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Agro Chem Industries, (M ines & M inera ls), Rep by its ProP: Mr Mohammed Rasheed^Ahmed, S/o Mohammed Qadeer^Ahmed, Aged 37^years, # 2'6-45/2, Adjacent to Satsang^Vihar, Pillar No. 215, UPParpalli, Rajendranagar, Shamshabad^District, T.S - 501141

¶8

& Also At:

¶9

M/s Agro Chem Industries, Rep by its ProP: Mr Mohammed Rasheed^Ahmed, S/o Mohammed Qadeer^Ahmed, Aged 37^years, SY^{No. 16l/t7 t62/t,} Budvel Village,^{Rajendranagar} Mandal, Ranga^{ReddY- T'S - 501142}

¶10

& Also At:

¶11

M/s Agro Chem^Industries, Rep by its ProP: Mr Mohammed^{RasheedAhmed,} S/o Mohammed Qadeer^Ahmed, Aged 37^years, SY^{No' 102,} Jangoan, Peddamul, Ranga ReddY^{- T.S - 50r141} -n \r ....*.il, ta

¶12

OA. No. 53U202s

¶13

¶14

Mr Mohammed Qadeer Ahmed, S/o Late Mohammed Rasheed^Ahmed, Aged 37 years, # 2-6-45/2,

¶15

Adjacent to Satsang Vihar, Pillar No. 215, Upparapalli, Rajendranagar, Shamshabad District, T.S - 501141

¶16

... Defenda nts

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Srinivas Rao Chakrala Counsel for Defendants 1 & 2 : Sri Pawan Kumar Agarwal

¶18

:: ORDER::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,34,18,1221- i.e., Rs.19,768.38 ps towards the Account No. 085416990000055 and Rs.2,14,93,353.25 ps towards the Account No.085413100000210 from the defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally with future interest from 04.01.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs, and in default, sale of O.A. Schedule moveable and immoveable assets/properties.

¶20

The averments of the applicant bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that the Defendants initially availed credit facilities around September-October 2015, securing the same by execution of a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds and other loan documentssuch as Demand Promissory Notes, Composite Agreements, Guarantees, undertakings, and similar instruments-thereby creating an equitable mortgage over the schedule properties. Subsequenfly, the Defendants continued to avail and enhance various facilities, including OCC limits, term loans for machinery, and working capital loans, with successive sanction letters issued in 2OU, 2019, and thereafter. Each enhancement or renewal was supported by fresh loan documentation and by extending the securities through additional mortgages and hypothecation of assets. The record further reflects that between 20t7 and 2024 the Defendants repeatedly M'r*

¶21

OA. No. 631/2025

¶22

sought enhancement,^{renewal,and releaseof funds,in pursuanceof} which the Bank^{sanctionedadditional facilities including a termloan} of Rs.36 lakhs^{and enhancedOCC limits up to Rs'2crores'Durlng the} COVID-19^{period, the Defendantsalso availed emergency credit} facilities such as^{CELC (Rs.20 lakhs) and the WorkingCapital Term} Loan^{(WCTL) underUGECL(Rs.45lakhs), again secured by execution} of the requisite^{agreementsand extensionof mortgagerights' over} time, multiple^{Memorandaof Deposit of Title Deeds were executedin} ZOr5, 2017,^{2020, 202f, a^d 2022, thereby continuouslysecuring} and extending^{the enforceabilityof the mortgage'which remains} valid within^{limitation. The Defendants consistently acknowledqed} Iiability by^{executingrevival and reaffirmation cum security} documents and^{by making intermittentpayments However' despite} availinqsubstantialfinancialassistanceandrepeatedlyagreeingto the repayment^{terms, the Defendants failed to adhere to the} repayment^{schedule and committed perslstent defaultsin servicing} the EMIS^{and other dues.The Bank contends that the Defendants did} notmaintainfinancialdiscipline,faitedtopayEMlsandduesdespite repeated^{demands, and thereby breachedthe contractualterms of} the loan agreements,^{causingthe accountsto becomeirregularand} the outstanding^{liabilities to accumulate The present Original} Application^{is therefore filed for recovery of the outstandingdues'}

¶23

Though the^{1st and 2nd Defendantsenteredappearancethrough their} counsel Sri^{Pawan Kumar Agarwal, they did not choose to file written} statement^{Accordingly, defendant'sright of filing written statement} was forfeited^{vide docket order dated 23'012026'}

¶24

In order^to prove its case,^{Applicant Bank examinedby Mr' K' R'} Vishwajeet, Branch Manager,^{as AW-1,4nd marked 166 documents} through him ;;;;o'" o-r*orugX@

¶25

OA. No. 631/2025

¶26

Defendants right of adducing evidence was forfeited though posted as-a last cbance,vide docket,order.daled,0 ilQ4 2A26".,, ^r A,^, r ^ ^.,

¶27

Heard the Learned counsel for the applicant bank. The right of defendants to advance arguments was forfeited on 06.04.2026 after affording ample opportunity. Perused the material placed on record.

¶28

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Applicant Bank while reiterating the contents of the OA, submitted that the Defendants, after availing the various loan facilities, committed default in repayment despite service of the Demand Notice and repeated reminders. He relied on evidence affidavit of AW_1 and documents marked through him as Exs.A.1 to A.166 and submitted that the claim is amply proved and accordingly sought to allow the OA with future interest and costs.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶30

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the OA claim against the Defendants and O.A. Schedule moveable and i m m ovea b le a ssets/ p ro pe rties?

¶31

As stated supra, though defendants entered appearance through their counsel, they did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Accordingry their right was forfeited. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupred with the recitars in Exs.A.1 to A.166 marked on beharf of the appricant bank remains unchailenged and un-rebutted, and the oA craim is amply proved through the evidence affidavit of AW-1 coupled with recitars in Exs.A.1 to A.166. Accordingry I hord that the defendants are liable to pay the-41 claim to the applicant bank with future interesr and costs. O$"rU

¶32

OA. No. 631/2025

¶33

In the result, the^present Original Application^{No.631/2025 is allowed} as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are^jointly and^severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of^Rs. 2,34,18,122/- with future interest rate of^12.50o/o simple from 04.01.2025 till the date of^realization;

¶35

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage^of properties and hypothecation of assets, as described in the schedules annexed to^{the OA and} applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against^the same for realisation of dues;

¶36

iii) the applicant is also entitled to^{proceedagainstthe} person and properties of the defendants 1 & 2 for realization of dues; and

¶37

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for^{the costs.}

¶38

The Applicant Bank is directed to^{file Cost Memo within2 weeksfrom} the date of receipt of this Order.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a cdpy of this order to^{the parties concernedand} upload in the official website.

¶41

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by^{me in the open court on this the} 23'd day of April, 2026)^.

¶42

7fltYY*.''rr\ I V^{2-u'' (RKIVIESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Agro Chem Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S. Agro Chem Industries

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 India versus Mrs. Boreddy Sunitha

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Sai Venkateshwara Filling Station

Icici Bank Limited versus Eligeti Satheesh Kumar

State Bank of India versus Sri Shiva Durga Industries

State Bank of India versus Mr Dastagir Babu Buragala

Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Shiva Shankar Stone Cutter Wlccs Ltd.