Partly allowed

Aditya Global Infra Ventures P Ltd. and Others v. State Bank of India

DRAT12 Feb 2026REGULAR APPEAL/73/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal partly, modifying an interest rate award. The court applied Supreme Court precedent to reduce interest from 14.70% to 11% simple per annum due to prolonged pendency and asset auction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; Respondent Bank entitled to interest at the rate of 11% per annum simple for pendent lite and future interest.

Aditya Global Infra Ventures P Ltd. and Others versus State… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Appeal No. 73 of 2025

¶4

(Arising out of O.A. 485 of 2019 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶5

Order No. 10

¶6

12.02.2026

¶7

M/s. Aditya Global Infra Ventures Private Limited & 3 Others … Appellants

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

State Bank of India & 9 Others … Respondent

¶10

Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

¶11

Ms. Debjani Ghosal with Ms. Sanchayita Das, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1/Bank

¶12

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶13

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

Instant appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 24.2.2025 passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad in O.A. 485 of 2019 wherein the Learned DRT allowed the O.A. against Defendants No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 12 for issuance of certificate of Rs.2,89,82,742.00 with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 14.70% per annum with an adjustment of Rs.1,52,51,160.00.

¶15

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Defendants No. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal.

¶16

At the very outset, Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Appellant is not challenging the impugned judgment on merits; rather, the only challenge is to the rate of interest awarded by the Learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the property, secured assets were auctioned on 22^nd January, 2021 which was adjusted in the Statement of Account and an amount of Rs.1,52,51,160.00 was

¶17

¶18

recovered by the Bank. Thereafter Appellant was not having any source of income. It is further submitted that O.A. was filed in the year June 2019 and was decided on 24^th February, 2025. In between there was Covid-19 pandemic for about three years and the Appellant is not liable to make any payment for pendent lite interest.

¶19

Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank would submit that Learned DRT after considering the merits of the matter as well as the loan agreement awarded the interest at the rate of 14.70% per annum which was the contractual rate of interest. Accordingly, appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Law is laid down on Section 34 of C.P.C. by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India -vsRavindra & Others [(2002) 1 SCC 367] wherein it is held that:

¶21

“58. Subject to the above we answer the reference in the following terms:

¶22

(1) Subject to a binding stipulation contained in a
voluntary contract between the parties and/or an
established practice or usage interest on loans and
advances may be charged on periodical rests and also
capitalized on remaining unpaid. The principal sum
actually advanced coupled with the interest on periodical rests so capitalized is capable of being adjudged as principal sum on the date of the suit.
(2) The principal sum so adjudged is "such principal
sum" within the meaning of Section 34 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 on which interest pendente lite and future
interest i.e. post-decree interest, at such rate and for such period which the court may deem fit, may be awarded by the court.
(3) Corporation Bank -vs- D.S. Gowda [(1994) 5 SCC 213] and Bank of Baroda -vs- Jagannath Pigment & Chem [(1996)
5 SCC at p. 280] have been correctly decided.”

¶23

As far as issue of awarding rate of interest, pendent lite and future, is concerned, admittedly loan was availed by the Appellants. Secured Assets were also auctioned by the Bank for an amount of Rs.1,25,21,160.00. This amount was adjusted in the Statement of Account on 22.01.2021 and, accordingly, reducing rate of interest was calculated. Thereafter, the proceedings continued and was ultimately decided on 24.2.2025. In such circumstances, firstly the Covid period

¶24

¶25

was in between pendency of the O.A.; secondly the secured assets have been auctioned and sold by the Bank.

¶26

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India -vs- Ravindra & Others (supra) I find it appropriate that the rate of interest, pendent lite and future, should be reduced from 14.70% to 11% simple per annum.

¶27

Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 24.2.2025 passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad in O.A. 485 of 2019 is modified to the extent that the Respondent Bank shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 11% per annum simple, pendent lite and future. Other portion of the impugned order is confirmed.

¶28

File be consigned to Record room.

¶29

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

¶30

Order pronounced in open Court.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶32

Dated: 12^th February, 2026 22/ac

Aditya Global Infra Ventures P Ltd. and Others v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Global Infra Ventures P Ltd. and Others v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Karri Veda Prasanna versus Karur Vysya Bank

Piyush Kanodia versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Choice Precitech India Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Jai Shree Mahakal Industries through Its Proprietor

C G Power and Industrial Solution Ltd. versus Indusind Bank Limited

Sandeep Mittal versus Asrec India Limited