Dismissed

United Medicals and Others v. State Bank Of India and Anr.

DRAT6 Aug 2025REGULAR APPEAL/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Kolkata) dismissed an appeal against an order of the DRT (Visakhapatnam) regarding a bank account classified as N.P.A. The appellant challenged the dues, specifically the interest component, relying on Supreme Court precedents, but the Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the lower court’s observations.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of the DRT date 22nd May, 2023 was accordingly maintained.

United Medicals and Others versus State Bank Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 15 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 15 of 2024 (Arising out of S.A. 160 of 2012 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

M/s United Medicals, A partnership firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Smt. Vajja Rani, W/o Late Balakrishna Murthy, Flat No.302, Block “D”, KSR Complex, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 500 013;

¶7

Smt. Vajja Rani, W/o Late Bala Krishna Murthy, Flat No.302, Block “D” KSR Complex, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 500 013;

¶8

Vajja Sandhya, D/o Late Bala Krishna Murthy, flat No.302, Block “D” KSR Complex, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-500013;

¶9

Sri Kaja Swaroop, S/o Rama Rao, Flat No.302, Block “D” KSR Complex, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 500 013;

¶10

Sri Kaja Rama Rao, S/o Narayanappadu, Flat No.302, Block D, KSR Complex, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 500 013. … Appellants

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

State Bank of India, Seethammadhara Branch, Opposite R&B Office, Andhra Pradesh – 530 013;

¶13

State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (SARB) Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 003.

¶14

… Respondents Counsel for Appellants … Mr. Nemani Srinivas Counsel for Respondents … Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhury (VC) JUDGMENT : 6^th August, 2025

¶15

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶16

1. Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated 22^nd May, 2023 passed by the Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam dismissing the S.A. 160 of 2012 (United Medicals and Others -vs- State Bank of India). As per pleadings of the parties, financial assistance was

¶17

¶18

Appeal No. 15 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶19

granted to the Appellants by the Respondent Bank and there were defaults in payment of the instalments. Consequently, the account was classified N.P.A. and Demand Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued which has been served upon the Appellant. Notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was also issued, which was duly served. Notice under section 13.4 was issued on 21.3.2012 which was duly served and published in accordance with law. Securitization Application was filed by the Appellant challenging the action of the Bank for questioning the notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act.

¶20

2. Reply was filed by the Bank stating that all the measures were taken in accordance with law. After considering the submissions made by the parties and perusing the record, Learned DRT recorded a finding that defaults were committed by the Appellants. Accordingly, the account was rightly classified as N.P.A. and notice under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act were duly issued, served and published. Interest was rightly charged by the Respondent Bank. Accordingly, Securitization Application was dismissed.

¶21

3. Learned Counsel for Appellants, as per the instruction received, made categorical submission that the Appellant is simply pressing the appeal on the issue of interest only. Reliance is placed upon Constitutional Bench Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank Vs. Ravindra [(2002) 1 SCC 367] and C.K. Sasankan -vsDhanalakshmi Bank Limited [(2009) 11 SCC 60] and State Bank of India -vs- Patwa Foundation Trust (AIR 2014 MP 17) . Learned Counsel further submits that if the rate of interest is reduced to an extent of 10% simple, pendente lite and future, Appellant is prepared to satisfy the decree.

¶22

4. At the very outset, it is to be observed that an O.A. 169 of 2010 was filed by the Bank which was allowed by the Learned DRT by the order dated 25.10.2024 against which an appeal, being Appeal No. 32 of 2025, was filed by the Appellants which is also being

¶23

¶24

Appeal No. 15 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata disposed of along with this appeal separately wherein the Appeal No. 32 of 2025 is partly allowed.

¶25

5. As far as instant appeal is concerned, Learned Counsel for Appellant in the connected appeal submits that the Appellant is simply pressing the appeal on the point of interest only. Accordingly, even in this appeal, Learned Counsel pressed on the issue of interest only which was to be considered in the connected appeal. Accordingly, since connected appeal is being disposed of along with this appeal, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Bank has followed the procedure in accordance with law.

¶26

6. Accordingly, Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Appeal is dismissed.

¶29

No order as to costs.

¶30

File be consigned to Record room.

¶31

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.