UNION BANK OF INDIA vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR on 6 October 2026

: - O R D E R - :

1. Originally Andhra Bank (now merged into the applicant Union Bank of India) has filed the OA at DRT, Coimbatore in OA No. 292 of 2014 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.170,12,57,393.23p along with interest at different rates and seeks recovery against defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The defendant no. 1 is the company, Defendants 2 & 3 are the guarantors. Defendant no. 4 is the sister concern of the 1st defendant – corporate guarantor. Defendants 5 to 9 are the pari-passu charge holders with the applicant bank under inter-se agreements and no relief is claimed against them. All the defendants were served and same had filed their Written Statements.

2. The present OA is transferred to this Tribunal owing to the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction vide the notification issued by the department of financial services dated 04.10.2022.

3. The same is re-numbered as TA 26 of 2023 and this Tribunal directed the applicant to intimate the next date of hearing to all the defendants. Consequently, defendants were served notices.

4. Defendant no. 1 company is under liquidation as submitted by the applicant bank and is served on the official liquidator.

5. Defendants 2, 3, 5 to 8 were placed Ex-parte by this Tribunal after transfer of the case on 18.07.2023. Defendants 4 & 9 who were served by way of publication after transfer were placed Ex-parte vide order dated 31.08.2023.

6. The brief facts leading to filing of the present lis is that the 1st defendant company had been availing the financial assistance since three decades and the 1st defendant had availed the fresh term loan of Rs.2500 Lakhs on 29.01.2007 by creating security and the 1st charge on the fixed asset and 2nd charge for the term loan and the working capital loan. The 4th defendant company has executed the corporate guarantee. The documents executed are the composite agreement executed by defendant no. 1 dated 24.12.2007, original deed of guarantee by D4 of the same date consequent to the sanction letter dated 29.01.2007. The defendant no.1 had also given the original stock statement dated 31.12.2007.

M/s. IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited is the Security Trustee vide agreement dated 26.12.2007 entered into amongst the applicant and the other lenders with the defendant no. 1.

7. The properties were mortgaged by way of deposit of title deeds by defendant no. 1 in favour of the applicant and the other lenders for a total sum of Rs.263.25 crores vide document registered bearing date 01.12.2009. It is also pleaded that on 12.06.2008 the bank had renewed the facilities under PCFC for Rs.52 Crores, FLC for Rs.7.20 Crores and inland bank guarantee renewal for Rs.1.80 Crores. The bank relies on the sanction letter dated 12.06.2008 along with various other documents dated 06.12.2008 and inter-se agreement of the lenders dated 26.09.2008. It is alleged that the defendant no. 1 company had executed the joint deed of hypothecation in favour of all the lenders on 26.09.2008.

8. Likewise, it is pleaded that a total sum of Rs.69 Crores were sanction towards renewal of the two facilities on 26.09.2009 for which the documents dated 18.03.2010 and 18.02.2010 are relied. In the same manner, a total sum of Rs.18.40 Crores were renewed under the facilities towards OCC and BG vide sanction letter 09.01.2010 for which the documents dated 30.01.2010 (Board Resolution), 18.03.2010 (Master agreement), 14.07.2010 (Promissory note and composite agreement) are relied. It is also pleaded that the name of the 1st defendant company was changed which information was given to the applicant bank by the defendant no.1 through the letter dated 04.03.2011.

9. The applicant bank further pleaded that vide sanction letter 12.03.2011, the PCFC was renewed upto Rs.60 Crores and FPB to Rs.10 Crores within MPBF and Rs.7.41 Crores outside MPBF and Rs.16.15 Crores toward OCC renewal and a sum of Rs.11.25 Crores toward BG renewal for which several documents dated 26.03.2011 along with board resolution dated 10.03.2011 are relied. It is also the case of the applicant that renewals were made under three heads vide sanction letter dated 27.12.2012 for which the defendant 1 to 3 have executed composite agreement, foreign exchange agreement, guarantee deed, promissory notes three numbers, consent letter all dated 30.03.2013. The original title deeds of the properties were with the M/s. IDBI and the same is shifted to the custody of M/s.

Indian Overseas Bank. However, the defendant no. 1 executed the registered memorandum of title deeds dated 06.06.2013.

10. It is also pleaded that the 1st defendant vide letter dated 12.11.2013 had signed the acknowledgment of debt for a sum of Rs.159,41,119.77p dated 06.11.2013, which sum is due to be paid by the defendant to the applicant. Since the transactions were not satisfactory, the applicant bank recalled the advances vide letter 25.11.2013. With the consent of all the banks, the Indian Overseas Bank sent a demand notice on 25.11.2013 which was not replied nor complied. Notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were issued dated 15.02.2014 and 17.02.2014. A sum of Rs.16,22,67,329/- towards packing credit facilities and a sum of Rs.23,29,34,528/- towards the bills unrealized were also debited to the credit account.

11. It is further pleaded that defendant no. 1 company came under the official liquidator vide orders of the Hon’ble Madras High Court (date not pleaded) in C.P. No.151/2013.

12. It is alleged that the defendants are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.170,12,58,184.23p for which the statement of accounts is filed. It is also submitted that the lead bank had filed a separate suit in OA 90 of 2014 in which the original documents are filed. Hence, the OA. CASE OF Defendants 2 to 4:-

13. Though the defendants remained Ex-parte before this Tribunal, it is gathered from the record that the defendants 2 to 4 have filed the reply statement by denying all the allegations. The gist of the WS is that the financial facilities were granted by the lenders including the applicant bank in the year 2005 to 2006 and in the year 2008 Andhra Bank consortium was constituted. Due to the world recession in 2007, the financial turn over dropped in the year 2008 to 2009. It is admitted that the company had availed term loan of Rs.175 Crores, working capital of Rs.155 Crores from the lenders for expansion plans for the export market. However, during 2011 -2012 the company faced hardship in re-payment and requested for re-structuring the loans. The company wanted to sell the surplus assets but lenders did not issue NOC though D1 was having export orders worth Rs.300 Crores. Since the re-structuring was not permitted, the defendant no.1 company was put to hardship though part term loan was serviced. It is also pleaded that in the year 2013 one unsecured creditor filed C.P. No.151/2013 for winding up the company and the ex-parte order came to be suffered by the defendant no. 1. The export turnings were appropriated by the lenders during 2013 to 2014. Though the consortium members deducted the premiums for ECGC the unutilized ECGC premiums paid were not credited. The banks had not applied the whole turn over policy concerning the industry. The official liquidator took physical possession of the assets. The defendants 2 & 3 were also facing criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act.

14. It is further contended that efforts were made to revive the company by filing proper applications before the Company Court which was dismissed. During February 2014 the bank took forcible possession to the property of the company. The employees of the 3rd defendant had also filed the certain complaints before the police. There was a violation of the provisions of Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act. In the meantime, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and the IOB assigned the debt and the ARC stepped in. ARC was also appraised about the need for revival of the company. The 1st defendant company was depending on the exports. It is also pleaded that assigning ARC moved the Company Court and sought for permission to proceed under SARFAESI Act which was allowed. The Hon’ble High Court directed the official liquidator to handover the assets vide order dated 13.12.2018. The assignee had acted in breach of undertaking and sold the properties by way of private treaty under the SARFAESI Act and without concurrence of official liquidator.

15. It is also the case that defendants 2 & 3 had filed W.P. No. 17744/2020 in which an order dated 17.02.2021 is passed with liberty to the parties to urge the grievances in respect of the measures before the appropriate forum. The said order was challenged in SLP No.12799/2021 and the Hon’ble Appex Court declined to interfere with the said order.

16. According to the defendants, the banks had obtained signatures on blank papers and the classification of NPA is against the Rules. There was no valid mortgage

and entire claim is refuted. The allegations are denied. It is also their case that the applicant bank sold all the property and appropriated the sale proceeds. The OA is sought to be dismissed.

17. The defendants 2 & 4 adopted the above WS filed by defendant no. 3 who had signed it. WS OF 5THDEFENDANT:-

18. The 5th defendant filed its WS and contended that the claim is secured by the mortgage and hypothecation under the consortium agreement along with other lenders. The 1st defendant obtained the credit facilities to the tune of Rs.102.50 Crores. This defendant had pari –passu charges along with other lenders. The defendants 5 to 9 are lenders and documents are executed in their favour. It is contended that as on 12.09.2013, the liability of the defendants 1 to 4 to the answering defendants is Rs.7263.74 Lakhs along with interest.

STAND OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF DEFENDANT NO.1 DATED 14.10.2025:-

19. The official liquidator of the defendant no. 1 company submits that as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 06.09.2013 in C.P. 151/2013, the D1 company is wound up. The official liquidator fixed the date as 17.07.2014 for taking possession which did not materialize since the assets were already taken over by M/s. IOB, Andhra Bank, UCO Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The OL took possession of the factory and the symbolic possession of the registered office on 07.08.2015. It is submitted that M/s. JM Financial ARC Limited moved an application in C.A. No.69/2018 and by an order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court the official liquidator handed over the possession of all such assets on 18.02.2019 to the said JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company limited. However, in compliance of the Court orders the claims were invited by the OL. Consequently, 179 claims received. 19 claimants submitted forum no.66. A table is furnished giving the details as under:-

S.N o Creditors details No. of claims Amount claimed Adjudicated and admitted amount Remarks

1. EPFO

1,87,09,057/- 1,16,18,975/- Paid 100%

2. Workmen

5,33,46,882/- 4,54,29,487/- claims adjudicated allowed -151 claims-paid @ 26% Rejected 9 claims.

3. Employee

1,86,98,076/- To be adjudicated Yet to be Adjudicated.

4. Govt.(IT)

1,46,64,059/- 1,26,96,810/- Adjudicated not paid.

5. Ordinary

7,83,29,076/- To be Adjudicated Yet to be Adjudicated

Total

17,95,49,789/-

WS OF DEFENDANT NO.6:-

20. Defendant no. 6 in the WS reiterates the 1st defendant having availed the credit facilities from the consortium and speaks of execution of documents as pleaded in the OA including the mortgages executed by way of deposit of title deeds. The creation of 1st charge on fixed assets on pari-passu basis and 2nd charge on the current assets. It pleads that the total sum of Rs.263.25 Crores are availed from the five banks namely IOB, Andhra Bank, United Bank of India, UCO Bank & Oriental Bank of Commerce. The answering defendant submits that it has issued various reminders to the defendant no. 1 to regularize the accounts towards the loans. According to the 6th defendant a sum of Rs.32,04,13,471/- is the due payable as on 20.09.2014 out of which a sum of Rs.5,77,99,753/- is recovered (Date of recovery not pleaded). It is also pleaded that this answering defendants acquired the debts payable to IOB and UCO Bank vide agreements dated 30.03.2016 and 26.03.2014. The defendants 5, 6 & 7 through the assignee submits that they stand outside the liquidation proceedings.

21. There were amendments to the OA and interlocutory applications filed which awaited the orders while the matter was pending before the DRT – Coimbatore. There were no effective hearings from 21.05.2019 till 21.10.2021(period of

Covid) and the matter was re-posted. The pleadings were completed only by 04.05.2022 and the matter was posted for proof affidavit. Proof affidavit was filed only on 22.10.2024 by giving up the earlier proof affidavit filed without the original documents. To establish their case the applicant examined AW- 1 – Deepa Devi only on 11.07.2025. Therefore, no evidence till 2025. This witness had relied on exhibit A1 – A72.

22. Since the defendants 1 to 4 though filed the written statement remained ex-parte and thus there is no evidence on behalf the defendants 1 to 4. The relief is claimed against defendants 1 to 4 only. There is no evidence part of other defendants.

23. The written arguments are filed by the applicants. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and the Ld. Counsel for D5 to D7. In the written synopsis, the averments made in the OA is reiterated. It is submitted that the applicant bank is eligible to recover the amount claimed under four accounts. It is argued that the applicant bank has maintained proper accounts. It is prayed that decree be passed against defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally.

24. After careful perusal of the pleadings, evidence available on record and the written arguments filed by the applicant the only point that arises for consideration is that, “Whether the applicant bank is eligible for recovery the sums claimed in the OA along with the interest as prayed for and against whom and what relief?”

25. It is clearly seen from the written arguments that the defendant no. 1 company went under liquidation and official liquidator is appointed.

26. After careful perusal of the affidavit of AW-1 it is clear that the 1st defendant company had executed the registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 06.06.2013 in favour of the IOB, Andhra Bank, United Bank of India and UCO Bank in which it is affirmed that it has already deposited the original title deeds with IOB on 05.03.2013 and the present document at Exhibit A-62 (page no.493 of PA volume no.3) and the same is executed for the purposes of securing the repayment of a total sum of Rs.340.81 Crores the said document is duly registered as document no.6258 dated 24.12.2013. Exhibit A-63 is the acknowledgement of debt signed by the authorized signatory of defendant no.1company. A total sum of Rs.159,41,14,119.77p is acknowledged as the liability on four accounts which account numbers are furnished and bills re- payment. The same is dated 06.11.2023 and this AOD is an enclosure to A-63 produced by AW-1. After going through the documentary evidence at A-64 dated 06.11.2013 which is signed by defendant no. 1 company’s authorized signatory coupled with document at A – 63, it is clear that the defendant no. 1 company acknowledges the sums payable to the applicant bank. The same is corroborated by the accounts statements produced at Exhibits A -69 to A-72. There is no rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the liability of defendant no.1 cannot be denied.

27. As far as the liability of D2 to D4 is concerned, it is pleaded that defendants 2 & 3 have executed personal guarantee and the same is produced at Exhibit A-49. The same is executed by defendant 2 and defendant 3. The recitals of the same shows that defendants 2 & 3 have bound themselves by executing the guarantee deed. The said guarantee contains a clause that it shall not exceed in the whole sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- apart from interest and other charges. Therefore the liability of defendants 2 & 3 is up to the limit of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and after perusal of the contents of the agreement shows that any account settled or admitted by the principal is acceptable as conclusive evidence against these guarantors as per para no.13 of the covenant. Thus with the AOD executed by D1 discussed in the above paragraphs is binding against defendants 2 & 3 extent of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. Further Exhibit A-56 is another document dated 30.03.2013 executed by defendants 2 & 3 and the limit of guarantee is Rs.122,52,00,000/-.

28. As regards the liability of defendant no.4 is concerned, the applicant bank relies on Exhibit A-4 which is dated 24.12.2007. After careful perusal of this document, it is seen that the guarantee is executed by defendant no.4 by the maximum extent of Rs.25,00,00,000/-. This amount to which the guarantee is obtained in the year 2007 is for Rs.25 Crores. Thereafter, there has been several modifications and enhancements of the different types of loans by way of renewals in the year 2008 for which separate documents are obtained at Exhibits A- 9 to A – 15. There has been further modification in the year 2009

enhancing the credit limits for which certain documents were obtained at Exhibits A-16 to A-24. Among these documents there is no renewal of the corporate guarantee for the modified sums of advances made. Likewise, in the year 2010 there were fresh OCC and BG facilities. The bank have produced documents at Exhibit A-25 to A-28 among these documents there is no corporate guarantee as pleaded for the enhanced loan transactions. This Tribunal does not find any of the fresh corporate guarantee for the modifications taken place in the year 2011 and the defendant no. 4 had not executed any corporate guarantee for the sanctions arising out of the sanction letter 12.03.2011 at Exhibit A-29. In the similar manner there is no corporate guarantee for the transaction arising out of the agreements and the promissory notes executed in the year 2012 at Exhibits A- 41 to A-52. Similar is the case where this Tribunal does not find any corporate guarantee executed by D4 for the transactions that took place in the year 2013. Therefore, the document at Exhibit A-4 dated 24.12.2007 being the corporate guarantee had become stale and the same is highly barred under limitation to be enforced. The Applicant Bank had obtained the deeds of personal guarantee for the enhanced sum from time to time. It is un-understandable that why the bank did not obtain the corporate guarantee for the enhanced / renewals allowed during the year 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The absence of corporate guarantee are renewal of the corporate guarantee for the enhanced sum is not produced not relied by the bank. Therefore, no recovery can be ordered against defendant no.4.

29. Suffice to say after carful perusal of the documentary evidence available on record, the applicant bank has proved the liability of defendant no.1 and the liability of defendant no. 2 & 3 as personal guarantors.

30. This Tribunal is to note the subsequent developments. The liquidator is not in possession any of the properties. Since the defendant company is under liquidation, no decree can be passed against the defendant no. 1 company. The applicant bank may put up their claims before the liquidator incase the liquidator is vested with the assets of the company.

31. At the same time, the applicant bank itself had filed a memo dated 05.12.2025 submitting that its stood outside the liquidation proceedings. It has also affirmed that the applicant had sold certain secured assets and the applicant has received a sum of Rs.6,64,00,000/- as their share after selling nine properties which include movables and immovable’s. In the memo it is clarified that only three properties are yet to be sold, for which the steps already initiated may be continued under SARFAESI subject pari-passu charges and with notice to the official liquidator.

32. The Ld. Counsel for defendant 5 to 7 during the course of arguments submits that some of the items in the Schedule – A movables belonging to defendant no.1company remains to be sold. He also submits that only item no.4 of Schedule – B belonging to defendant no. 1 remains to be sold. When such submissions were made, the applicant bank was directed to furnish the details of properties available for sale. This was never adverted to by the applicant bank despite the opportunities. Considering the long pendency of the case, the Tribunal noted that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for D5 to D7 goes un-rebutted to mold the relief.

33. Suffice to say that after careful perusal of the entire material evidence on record and further considering the subsequent developments of the case, no recovery certificate can be issued against the defendant no.1 company now represented by the official liquidator. Likewise, no recovery certificate can be issued against the defendant no. 4 corporate guarantor.

34. However, the remaining properties in schedule – A and item no. 4 of Schedule – B properties belonging to the erst-while defendant no.1 company may be ordered to be sold for recovery of the sums adjudged.

35. The Applicant has sought for the recovery of the sums along with interest at the rate of 12.5% p.a. on the term loan and 13.50% p.a. on the packing credit facility and 15% p.a. on cash credit from the date of application till date of realization subject to the rate of change of interest (Para-A of the relief in the OA).

36. The interest is charged as on 31.07.2014. The OA was signed on 26.08.2014. Now the question is to grant the interest from the date of filing at different rates till realization which includes the lis-pendence interest also. While granting the lis-pendence interest, it is to be noted that at the time of filing the OA against Defendant No.1, it was already under liquidation as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 06.09.2013 in CP No.151/2013. As discussed above, the recovery certificate for the sum claimed cannot be issued against the Defendant No.1 Company now under liquidation with no assets left behind with the Official Liquidator, but only the part of assets i.e. the movables in Schedule A and Item No.4 of the Schedule B properties, which are in the custody of the assignee ARC i.e. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. For granting the relief under the component of interest, this Tribunal cannot be oblivious of the following facts on record.

(a) Defendant No.1 Company was under liquidation at the time of filing of the suit itself.

(b) That the pleadings were not complete till 18.10.2016.

(c) There were substitution petitions filed as could be seen from the order sheet dated 24.11.2016 and fresh substitution petition was filed on 03.02.2017.

(d) In the year2017 amendment petitions were filed and the OA was allowed to be amended by 27.03.2018.

(e) Applicant had filed certain IAs.

(f) As already noted in Paragraph 21, there was no effective hearing for almost two years during Covid period.

(g) The matter is transferred in the year 2023 to this Tribunal.

(h) After transfer, the PA was not filed and time was taken by the Applicant. This Tribunal noted on 09.01.2024 and found that Original documents were not filed with the PA.

(i) The witness was examined by substituting a fresh witness. The Bank’s witness were examined only on 11.07.2025.

(j) The status report was awaited from the Official Liquidator and the Applicant Bank with regard to the available securities for enforcement and also the realizations made.

The above facts reveled through record shows that there has been a delay in disposal of the case not due to the fault on the part of the Defendants, but due to the circumstances explained above and considering the same, this Tribunal is of the opinion that granting interest as prayed for for the lis-pendence period and future litigation as prayed would be a dis-service to the cause of justice and unjustifiable to impose the same on the Defendants.

37. As discussed supra, this Tribunal cannot issue Recovery Certificate against the Defendant No.1, which is under liquidation, but considering that certain properties belonging to Defendant No.1 are under the custody of the Defendant No.7, the ARC, the same can be ordered to be sold by the said ARC for realization of the decree sum – balance after giving deductions to the sums already realized.

38. At the cost of repetition, no Recovery Certificate can be issued against Defendant No.4 private limited company for there being no enforceable, legal guarantee deed after the initial Bank Guarantee dated 24.12.2007 and the reasons could be found at Para-28 supra. In the circumstances, the Recovery Certificate could be issued only against Defendant 2 & 3 who executed enforceable personal guarantee to the sum adjudged along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of decree till realization. Consequently the following

:-O R D E R - :

I. The TA No.26 of 2023 is allowed against the Defendants 2 & 3.

II. The Recovery Certificate be issued against Defendants 2 & 3 only for a total sum of Rs.170,12,57,397.23p LESSsuch sums realized already by the joint lenders including the assignee who had stepped into the shoes of other lenders now having custody of the remaining assets as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.

III. The above sum shall be paid by the Defendants 2 & 3 less the deductions already realized along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. Defendants 2 & 3 shall be personally liable to make good the above sum.

IV. However, the Defendant – Assignee namely JM Asset Reconstruction Company is at liberty to sell the remaining assets as mentioned in the schedule hereunder, which belonged to the Liquidated Company and distribute the proceeds as per the pari – passu charges among the lenders including the present Applicant. Such recoveries be given deduction appropriately while recovering the amount from Defendants 2 & 3. Before proceeding to sell the remaining assets, due notices be issued to the Official Liquidator also, who is yet to adjudicate certain claims of the workmen and unpaid Government dues adjudicated. The Government dues towards IT be paid first before appropriating the sale proceeds to the loan accounts on pari – passu charges.

V. The claim against Defendant No.4 stands rejected.

VI. All such recoveries be reported from time to time to the recovery officer.

VII. There shall be no order as to costs.

VIII. Recovery Certificate be issued against Defendants 2 & 3 only.

IX. All the pending IAs stands disposed of.

X. Copy of this final order be communicated the parties concerned by the Registry as per rules.

Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

SCHEDULE “A”

Hypothecation of entire fixed assets (Movables & Immovables) of the 1st Defendant Company on a paripassu second charge basis with other term lenders. Hypothecation of stocks and entire current assets on paripassu first charge with other working capital lenders.

SCHEDULE “B” Item No.4:-

Tirupur Regn, Pollachi Sub-Regn, Pilchinnampalayam Village,

a. S.F. No.:49/1, Patta No.:80, an extent of 1.44 acres within the following boundaries: East of lands in S,F.Nos:50/1A & 2A, South of PonnachiyoorSubbegounder and Mylathal’s land, North of Marimuthu Gounder’s land and east west cart track and West of North South cart track.

b. S.F.No:50/1A, an extent of 3.38 acres within the following boundries:- East of S.F.No.51, South of PonnachiyoorSubbegounder and Kaliappa Gounder and Dhanalakshmi’s land, North of lands belonging to Marimuthu Gounder and east west cart track and West of Land in S.F.No.49/1.

c. S.F. No.51/1 an extent of 2.98 acres situated with following boundries: East of Pollachi to Valparai main Road, South of Ponnachiyoor Kaliappa Gounder and Dhanalakshmi’s land, West of lands in F,F,No.50/1A and 2A and North of Marimuthu Gounder’s Land and East West cart track. Totally measuring 7.70 Acres excluding 10 cents provided as East West cart track.

Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI (Dictated to Stenographer &PS, typed by him in the System, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 6th Day of October, 2026)

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT S.N o. Date Description of Document Volume – I Proof Affidavit with POA Nature of Document Exhibit A. Nos.

1. 29.01.2007 Original Sanction letter Copy

2. 31.01.2008 Minutes of Meeting Copy

3. 24.12.2007 Original Composite agreement executed by Vijayeswari Textiles in favour of Andhra Bank Copy

4. 24.12.2007 Original General Form of Guarantee executed by Seshraj Enterprises in favour of Andhra Pradesh. Copy

5. 26.12.2007 Copy of Security, trustee appointment Agreement for working capital banks. Copy

6. 26.12.2007 Copy

of Security, trustee appointment agreement Copy

7. 31.12.2007 Copy Stock Statement submitted by Vijayeswari Textiles to Andhra Bank Copy

8. 26.09.2008 Copy of Joint deed of Hypothecation executed by 1” defendant and applicant , defendants 5 to 8. Copy

9. 26.09.2008 Xerox copy of inter-Se agreement between Indian Overseas Bank, Andhra Bank, UCO Bank and United Bank of India Copy

10. 12.06.2008 Original Sanction letter Copy

11. 06.12.2008 Original Composite Agreement executed by Vijayeswari Textiles in favour of Andhra Bank Copy

12. 06.12.2008 Original undertaking and acknowledgement of sanction dated 16.09.2008 Vijayeswaritextiles to Andhra Bank. Copy

13. 06.12.2008 Original consent letter for disclosure of Information to CIBIL executed by Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Copy

14. 06.12.2008 Original RF 289 A executed by Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Copy

15. 06.12.2008 Original RF 145 A counter guarantee form executed by Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Copy

16. 29.09.2009 Original sanction letter Copy

17. 17.02.2010 Letter sent by VTX to Andhra Bank

for submission of documents. Copy

18. 18.02.2010 Acceptance of terms of sanction by 1 defendant. Copy

19. 18.03.2010 Original composite agreement executed by 1 defendant. Copy

20. 18.03.2010 Original promissory note Copy

21. 18.03.2010 Original undertaking regarding collecting discounting or purchasing bills, cheques etc. by 1st defendant. Copy

22. 18.03.2010 Original consent letter or disclosure to CIBIL Copy

23. 01.12.2009 Xerox copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds by Vijayeswari Textiles Limited in favour of Indian Overseas Bank, Andhra Bank , United Bank of India, UCO Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce. (Doc. No. 2736/2010). Copy

24. 09.01.2010 Original Sanction Letter Copy

25. 30.01.2010 Certified copy of the board resolution of 1st defendant regarding acceptance of terms of sanction. Certified copy

26. 18.03.2010 Original International Foreign Exchange Master Agreement between the Applicant bank and 1st Defendant. Copy

27. 14.07.2010 Original Promissory note executed by 1st defendant. Copy

28. 14.07.2010 Original composite agreement executed by 1st Defendant. Copy

29. 12.03.2011 Original sanction letter Copy

30. 10.03.2011 Board Resolution of 1st defendant regarding acceptance of terms of sanction. Certified copy

31. 26.03.2011 Original composite Agreement Copy

32. 26.03.2011 Original promissory note executed by 1st defendant. Copy

33. 26.03.2011 Original promissory note executed by 1st defendant Copy

34. 26.03.2011 Original promissory note executed by 1st defendant Copy

35. 02.03.2011 Original stock statement filed by 1st Defendant Copy

36. 26.03.2011 Counter guarantee executed by 1st Defendant. Copy

37. 26.03.2011 Original undertaking regarding collecting , discounting or purchasing bills, cheques etc. by 1st defendant. Copy

38. 26.03.2011 Original consent for disclosure to CIBIL executed by 1st defendant Copy

39. 26.03.2011 Original acceptance of terms of sanction. Copy

40. 05.09.2012 Original Working capital Consortium Agreement executed by 1 defendant and Andhra Bank , Oriental Bank of Commerce, Indian Overseas Bank, Yes Bank Copy

41. 05.09.2012 Original Joint Deed of Hypothecation executed by 1st defendant and Andhra Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Indian Overseas Bank, Yes Bank Copy

42. 05.09.2012 Original master undertaking with regard to working capital limits executed by 1st defendant and Andhra Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, IOB, Yes Bank Copy

43. 05.09.2012 Original inter-Se Agreement between Indian Overseas Bank, Andhra Bank, UCO Bank and United Bank of India. Copy

44. 20.10.2012 Original sanction of sanctioning Rs.5 crore PC/FBP/FUDB. Copy

45. 25.10.2012 Original Demand promissory note for Rs. 5 crore executed on behalf of 1st defendant. Copy

46. 26.10.2012 Original stock statement submitted 1st Defendant Copy

47. 25.10.2012 Original composite Agreement dated 25.10.2012 executed on behalf of 1st defendant. Copy

48. 25.10.2012 Original undertaking regarding collecting, discounting or purchasing bills, cheques etc by 1 defendant. Copy

49. 25.10.2012 Original General form of Guarantee executed by A.L. Ramachandra & Jayanthi Ramachandra Copy

50. 25.10.2012 Original consent for disclosure of information to CIBIL. Copy

51. 25.10.2012 Original undertaking accepting the terms of sanction. Copy

52. 29.10.2012 Copy of letter seeking NOC for ceding of charges sent by Andhra Bank to Indian Overseas Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Yes Bank, United Bank of India and UCO Bank Copy

53. 27.12.2012 Original sanction letter Copy

54. 30.03.2013 Original composite Agreement executed by on behalf of VTX Industries Limited. Copy

55. 30.03.2013 Original International Foreign Exchange Master Agreement between the applicant bank and 1st defendant. Copy

56. 30.03.2013 Original General

form of Guarantee executed by A.L. Ramachandra & Jayanthi Ramachandra. Copy

57. 30.03.2013 Original Demand promissory note for Rs. 85,38,00,000/- executed by 1st defendant. Copy

58. 30.03.2013 Original Demand promissory note for Rs. 16,25,00,000/- executed by 1st defendant. Copy

59. 30.03.2013 Original demand promissory note for Rs. 5,00,00,000/- executed by 1 defendant. Copy

60. 30.03.2013 Original consent letter for disclosure to CIBIL by A.L. Ramachandra & Jayanthi Ramachandra Copy

61. 30.03.2013 Original consent letter for disclosure to CIBIL by VTX industries Limited. Copy

62. 06.06.2013 Xerox copy of registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by VTX industries Ltd. In favour of Indian Overseas Bank, Andhra Bank, United Bank of India , UCO Bank , Oriental Bank of Commerce and Yes Bank Doc. No. 6258/2013) Copy

63. 12.11.2013 Original letter of Acknowledgment of Debt executed by VTX Industries Limited. Copy

64. 06.11.2013 Original Acknowledgment of Debt for Rs. 159,41,14,119.77/- executed by VTX Industries Limited. Copy

65. 20.11.2013 Recall notice sent by Andhra Bank to VTX Industries Limited. Copy

66. 25.11.2013 Copy of demand notice sent under Sec. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Copy

67. 15.02.2014 Copy of possession notice under Sec. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. Copy

68. 17.02.2014 Copy of possession notice under Sec. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. Copy

69. 01.10.2012 to 31.07.2014 Statement of accounts for OCC general Computeri sed

70. 01.04.2012 to Statement of accounts for Term Loan. Computeri zed

Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI (Dictated to Stenographer &PS, typed by him in the System, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 6th Day of October, 2026)

31.07.2014

71. 01.04.2012 to 31.07.2014 Statement for Export packing credit facility Computeri zed

72. Certificate for accounts Computeri sed