Allowed

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Sai Photo Studio

DRT11 Sept 2026OA/863/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant filed an Original Application for recovery of claim against Defendants, who were borrowers and co-borrowers. The Defendants argued that prior quashing of SARFAESI measures barred recovery. The Tribunal allowed the Application, holding that quashing procedural measures does not extinguish the debt.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 50,59,374.28 with future interest, right to proceed against mortgaged property, issuance of Recovery Certificate, and costs.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Sri Sai Photo… — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD} OATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 863 OF 2025

¶4

PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION^PVTLTD, Acting in its Capacity of Trustee of Pegasus Group^{39 Trust} Having its Corporate Office at 55-56, 5th^Floor, Free Press House, Nariman Point,^{Mumbai-400021'} And one of its Representative Offce at: Regus Business Centre at 1-10-39 to^{44, Level -4,} Gumidelli Towers. Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016. Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶5

"...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

SRI SAI PHOTO STUDIO,^(Borrower) 3-9-58/2/3, Ashok Nagar, Malapur, Hyderabad-500062 Represented by its ProPrietor

¶8

RAJOU BRAMA CHARRY

¶9

M]OU BMMA CHARRY, (Co-Borrower/Legal Heir of Late Rajoju Venkata Chary) S/o Late Rajoju Venkata Chary,

¶10

H. No.3- 13- 142l23lc, Plot No.2318, Gokul Nagar Colony in Sy.Nos.96, 97^{& 98, Block No.6,} Marriguda, Ma llapur, Hyderabad- 500076

¶11

RA]AJ U PRASANNA,

¶12

(Co-Borrower/Legal Heir of Late Rajoju Venkata Chary) D/o Late Rajoju venkata Chary, H.No.3-13-142/23lC, Plot No.23lB, Gokul Nagar Colony in Sy.Nos.96,^{97 & 98, Block No'6,} Marriguda, Ma llapur, Hyderabad- 500076

¶13

RAJOJU VAJARAMMA,

¶14

(Legal Heir of Late Rajoju Venkata Chary) Wo^{Late Rajoju Venkata Chary,}

¶15

H. No.3- 13- 142l23lc, Plot No.2318, Gokul Nagar Colony in Sy.Nos.96,^{97 & 98, Block N.6,} Marriguda, Mallapur, Hyderabad- 500076

¶16

....Defendants

¶17

: Mr. Veera Shiva Kumar Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defendant Nos.^{1 to} 4:^{Mr, Md. Afzal Beeyabanl} rtluv,'.,r /7 N\N^- t-,/

OA No.863/2025

2of5

::^qLLEB-::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA} for the^{recoveryof a sum of} Rs. 50,59,374.28^ps from the^Defendants1 to^{3 jointlyand severallywith} future interest @(11.20olo +^{2olo Penal)p.a. with monthlyrest from the} date of application till the date of^{realizationalongwith costs, and in} default sale of OA mortgaged^property.

¶22

The averments of the Applicant,^{as stated in the OA, in brief, are that} Defendant Nos.1 to 3, as borrower and^{co-borrowers along with one late} Rajoju Venkata Chary^(now represented by^{his legal heirs D-2 to D-4),} availed credit facilities from^{RBL Bank, secured by mortgageof the OA} Schedule Property, which loan account^{was subsequently assignedln favour} of the Applicant. The Defendants^{committeddefaults in repayment,} resulting in classification of the account^{as NPA} on^{25.03.2021. Thereafter,} the Applicant issued a demand notice dated^{16.10.2024 underSection} 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.^{Desplte serviceof the said notice, the} Defendants failed to regularise the^account or^{dischargethe outstandinq} liability. Consequently, the Applicant^has filed^{the present O.A. seeking} recovery of the outstanding dues^{from the Defendants.}

¶23

Defendant No.2 filed a Written Statement adopted^{by defendants1, 3} & 4. The Respondents contend that^{RespondentNo.1, through Respondent} No.2 as its^proprietor and with^{RespondentNo.3 as co-borrower,availed a} business loan facility from RBL^{Bank Limited in 2018, secured by mortgage} of the^property belonging to late^{R. Venkata Chary,fatherof Respondent} No.2 and husband of Respondent No.4, which loan^{was subsequently} assigned in favour of the Applicant.^{They submit} that^{the mortgagor died} on 01.01.2019 and, despite intimation thereof to^{the Bank, the EI\4I} deductions were discontinued, though^payments of about^{Rs. 9,00,000/-} were made ltl 2022, excluding the COVID-19 moratorium^{period. The} Respondents further contend that the SARFAESI^{measures initiated by the} origtnal lender and the Applicant were^quashed byr\hT;9uTl^{in S A}

grt-t.u,

oA No.863/202s

3 of 5

No.80/2023 vide order dated 08.04.2024^{for non-serviceof the mandatory} notice under Section 13(4)^uPon the^{legal heirs of the deceasedmortgagor} and, therefore, the^{present O.A. seeking enforcementof the same security} lnterest is not maintainable. They also dispute^{the claim as barredby} limitation and the^{quantum claimed, alleginglevy of unauthorisedpenal} interest, charges and improper^{compounding, and deny having received} proper notice of the assignment or havlng committed default. On^these grounds, Defendants seek dlsmissal of the O.A.^withcosts'

¶28

In order to Prove^its case, Applicant examined Mr.^{Mahesh Kumar,} Senior Manager as^AW-1 and marked 12 documents^{through him as} Exhibits A-1 to A-12.

¶29

Defendants' right to adduce^{evidencewasforfeitedon 08.04'2026} after affording ample^{opportunities.}

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.^{Learned counsel for the} defendants stated that orders^{may be passed basedon records.Perused} the material^placed on^record.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the^{applicantwhile reiteratlng the contents of} the application and^{denyingthe avermentsof the defendantsin written} statement,^placed reliance^{upon Exs.A-1to Exs.A-12 markedthrough} applicant evldence^{(AW-1) as proof of clalm of the bank and submittedthat} the claim of the applicant^{is amply proved and hence it is entitled for} recovery of the outstanding amount^{together with future interest and costs'} Accordingly he sought to^{allow the OA with future interest and costs and} issue Recovery Certificate.

¶32

The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶33

Whether the Applicant Bank^{is entitled for the OA claim} against the Defendants^{and OA mortgagedproperty?}

t{10".*

oA No.863/2025

4 of 5

The principal contention of the Defendants in their written statement is that the SARFAESI measures taken in respect of the subject loan were earlier quashed by this Tribunal in S.A. No.80/2023 vide order dated 08.04.2024. The said order, though passed ex parte, cannot be ignored and its effect has to be confined to the SARFAESI measures which were the subject matter of the said proceedings. euashing ex-parte the SARFAESI measures does not, by itself, extinguish the underlying debt or bar the secured creditor from pursuing an independent remedy for recovery of the amount due. Defendants, apart from making general denials in the Written Statement and disputing the claim of the applicant bank, have failed to substantiate their defence by adducing any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The Defendants also did not choose to crossexamine AW-1 so as to discredit the testimony of the witness or challenge the genuineness and correctness of Exs.A-1 to A-12 relied upon by the Applicant Bank. It is well settled that mere pleadings or bald assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of the facts pleaded. On the contrary, the Applicant Bank has placed on record both oral and documentary evidence in support of its claim. The testimony of AW_1, coupled with the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A_1 to A_12, has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant Bank has successfully established its claim. Hence, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being Borrower/Co_borrowers jointly and severally and also Defendant Nos.2 to 4 as legal heirs of late Rajoju Venkata Chary to the extent of estate of late Rajoju Venkata Chary now lying in their hands; are liable to pay the O.A. claim to the Applicant Company together with future interest and costs.

¶38

In the result, the present Original Application No.863/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶39

(i) The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being Borrower/Co_borrowers jointly and severally and also Defendant No.2 to 4 as teeat heirs of tate Rajoju venkatu chffqg,flKnt of

¶40

OA No.863/2025

¶41

5of5

¶42

estate of late Rajoju Venkata Chary^{now lying in their} hands; are liable to^pay to the^{ApplicantCompany a sum} of Rs. 50,59,374.28^ps with future interest^rate @¹²⁷⁰ p.a. simple from the date of appllcation till the date of realization;

¶43

(il) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of^Property as described in Schedules annexed to^{the OA and} Applicant Company is entitled to^proceed against^the same for realisation of dues;

¶44

(iii) the Applicant Company is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^properties of the defendants^{1 to 3 for} realization of its dues; and

¶45

(iv) the Applicant Company is entitled for the costs;

¶46

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

¶47

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶48

2A. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶49

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day ofseptember, 2025)

¶50

,t\s ESHWAR KOTH E) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

oA 863/2s

¶52

05.08.2026Heard^{theargumentsofapplicantthroughSri VShivaKumar.}
SriPSrikarrepresenting^{AB counselfordefendantrequested}
time forarguments,call^{on06.08.2026.}

¶53

06.08.20 26 ")1	SriVShiva^{Kumar counselforapplic} representing counsel^fordefendan passedbasedonrecords.^Fororders,	^{antpresent SriP Srikar} ^{tstatedorders}^may be ^{callon 21 08 2026'}
atq.	rd.. pr..rdlnlorncc,on;:,;ilrl.iS l*and rdiournedto^r,,"'

¶54

11.09.2026^{Order pronounced vide separate sheets'-In.the result' OA ls} allowed with^{costs' Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly'} -^\ /Azi""tL/

¶55

P.O.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Sai Photo Studio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Sai Photo Studio

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

Srinivas Gadwala versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Uco Bank versus Prasanna Lakshmi a Guptha

Icici Bank Limited versus M L Chandra Hasa

Gatla Srikanth versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Amaravathi Hp Gas Agency versus Bank of Baroda

Icici Bank Limited versus Chintala Narendra