Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Anucon Engineering Projects Private Limited

DRT30 Jul 2026OA/97/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

YesBank Ltd. filed an Original Application for recovery of Rs. 1.29 crore from Anucon Engineering Projects and its director Vikas Kanneganti. The Tribunal rejected jurisdiction challenges regarding consolidation of multiple loans and found the bank's evidence of default and hypothecation uncontroverted, holding the respondents liable for the outstanding dues.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered to pay Rs. 1,29,63,114.85 with future interest at 9% p.a., proceed against hypothecated vehicles and personal properties for realization, and pay costs.

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Anucon Engineering Projects… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M,A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application No: 97 OF 2025

¶5

M/S.YESBANK LTD., 2ndFloor,H.No. 1-8-387, AgravanshiPlaza, HUDALane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad-500003 Rep: Byits Authorised Signatory .....Applicant
Versus
1,M/s. AnuconEngineeringProjects^privateLimited, Represented byItsDirector, Mr.Vikas Kanneganti, PlotNo,771,RoadNo.18, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpalli Hyderabad-500072
2.Mr.Vikas Kanneganti, DirectorofM/s.Anucon EngineeringProjectsPrivate Limited, H.No.3-6411, PlotNo.771,Road No.18, VivekanandaNagar,Hyderabad-500072 ...Defendants
Counselfor theApplicant:Mr. N.B. Sudarshan CounselforDefendants1&2:Mr.^p.MohithReddy

¶6

:: ORDER::

¶7

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sunr of Rs. 1,29,63,114.85 ps from the Defendants 1 to 7 joinfly and severally with future interest @ 1B% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application 2.4\u-<r.:,-\ i^{// >-i)g,t, _ _}

¶8

OA No.9712025,

¶9

2of6

¶10

till the date of^{realisationalong with costs, and in default, sale of oA} hypothecated^vehicles.

¶11

The averments^{of the ApplicantBank, as statedin the OA' in brief'} are that Defendant^{No' 1 Company, represented by its Director' as} borrower, and^{DefendantNo.2, as co-applicant,availed construction} equipment loan^{facilities aggregatingto Rs' 1,29'63'tt4'85for the} purchaseofVariousconstructionvehicles'Thesaidfacilitiesweresecured bycreationofahypothecationchargeoverthefinancedvehiclesinfavour of the applicant^{bank. It is the case of the applicant that the defendants} committed^{perSistent defaults in repaymentof the loan instalments,} resulting in the^{loan account being classified as a NPA. Thereafter,the} applicantbankissuedaLoanRecallNoticedated23.0g.2024callingupon thedefendantstodischargetheoutstandingdues.Despiteserviceofthe saidnotice,thedefendantsfailedtoregularisetheaccountorrepaythe outstanding amount,^{compellingthe applicant bank to file the present} Original Application^{seeking recovery of the outstandingdues'}

¶12

Defendant No.1^{filed a written statement, which was adoptedby} DefendantNo.2,alongwithmaterialdocumentscontestingthe maintainability^{of the OA both on facts and in law and seeking its dismissal} at the threshold.^{The defendants contend that the OA is not maintainable} as the applicant^{bank has sought recoveryof ?1'29'63'114'85/-by} clubbing four^{separate construction equipmentloans sanctionedunder} distinctloanagreements,Sanctionlettersandloanaccountnumbers,each constituting^{an independentcause of action.Placing reliance on Rule 10 of} the Debts^{Recovery Tribunal (Procedure)Rules, 1993' the defendants} contendthatsuchconsolidationhasbeenresortedtoonlytosatisfythe pecuniaryjurisdictionofthisTribunal.ItisfurthercontendedthattheoAis premature, as the tenure^{of the loan facilities extended up lo 22'08'2026}

@ffi".u

OA No.9712025

3of6

and no crystallized liability had arisen on the date of its institution. The defendants assert that they had substantially adhered to the repayment schedule, with only minor delays due to temporary financial constraints, and had continued to remit monthly instalments even after filing of the OA. They further contend that the loan recall notices dated 23.08.2024 and 23.09.2024 are vague and do not specify the alleged defaults, despite acknowledging receipt of payments, and therefore no valid cause of action existed for recalling the loan facilities. The defendants also submit that Defendant No.1 Company has maintained a long-standing banking relationship with the applicant without any previous default and that the applicant itself treated all four loan accounts as independent facilities by maintaining separate loan accounts, sanction letters and repayment schedules, but sought to consolidate them only at the stage of recovery proceedings. The defendants deny the outstanding amount claimed by the applicant, dispute the allegation of persistent default, and contend that the applicant has exaggerated its claim despite accepting regular instalment payments. On these grounds, the Defendants prayed for dismissal of the OA in its entirety.

¶17

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Mr. Sai Pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 7 documents through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-7.

¶18

The right of the defendants to adduce evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 17.04.2026, after affording sufficient opportunities.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank. The DefenSants, despite being^granted ample opportunity, failed to advance oral arguments and, accordingly, their right stood forfeited vide docket order dated lO.O7.2026.Perused the material placed on record./k-$

¶20

OA No.9712025.

¶21

4of6

¶22

Learned Counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments reiterate the contents of its application and piaces reliance upon Exs.A-1 to Exs.A-7 marked through applicant evidence (AW-1) as proof of claim of the bank and submitted that the applicant bank is entitled for recovery of the outstanding amount together with future interest and costs and invoking the hypothecation deed.

¶23

8. The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim aga i nst the Defendants?

¶25

Defendants raised objection regarding maintainability of the OA on the ground that the applicant has clubbed four separate loan accounts, each arising out of independent sanction letters and loan agreements, thereby giving rise to distinct causes of action. It is contended that such consolidation ls contrary to Rule 10 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 and has been resorted to only to confer pecuniary jurisdiction upon this Tribunal. A perusal of the pleadings and documentary evidence discloses that all the loan facilities were sanctioned by the same applicant bank to the same borrower company, represented by the same Director, and Defendant No.2 is admittedly the co-a pplica nt/g ua ra ntor in all the facilities. The relief sought by the applicant is a common relief for recovery of the outstanding dues against the same set of defendants arising out of a continuous banker-customer relationship. l4erely because separate loan accounts were maintained for accounting purposes, the same would not prohibit the applicant from seeking recovery of the aggregate outstanding dues in one proceeding, particularly when the parties are identical and common questions of fact and law arise for lletermination. No /Dg-rr,rr(,-r, _)ra,

¶26

OA No.9712025

¶27

5of6

¶28

prejudice has been demonstrated by the defendants on account of such consolidation. Therefore, the objection regarding misjoinder of causes of action is devoid of merit.

¶29

As stated supra, the defendants, apart from making general denials in the Written Statement, filing material papers and disputing the claim of the applicant bank, have failed to substantiate their defence by marking any documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The Defendants also did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine AW-1 so as to discredit the testimony of the witness or challenge the genuineness and correctness of Exs.A-1 to A-7 relied upon by the Applicant Bank. It is well settled that mere pleadings or bald assertions, unsupported by marked 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-7, has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfled that the Applicant Bank has successfully established its claim. Hence, Defendant Nos.1 & 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the O.A. claim to the Applicant Bank together with future interest and costs, in accordance with law.

¶30

10, In the result, the present Original Application No.97/2025 is allowed as u nder:

¶31

¶32

(i) The Defendant No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liabte-to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 1,29,63,114.85 ps with future interest rate @ 9.00o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date ot reatization@,o,1,\l

¶33

OA No.97/2025,

¶34

6of6

¶35

(ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicles as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for realisation of dues;

¶36

(iii) the applicant is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

t2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of July, 2026)

¶42

ffi.rat\ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Anucon Engineering Projects Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Anucon Engineering Projects 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

Marla Babu versus Can Fin Homes Limited

Smt Ramya Raghupathi versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Marineni Purushotam

Union Bank of India versus Sri Paadha Dairy Products

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Ayyappa Bricks.

Central Bank of India versus Jamili Bricks