Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Vinayaka Alloy Castings

DRT19 May 2025OA/100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's Original Application against the respondents for recovery of a term loan and cash credit totaling Rs. 90.17 lakhs along with interest and costs. The bank was permitted to proceed against hypothecated movables and the respondents other properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents liable to pay Rs. 90,17,985/ with interest @14.15% p.a.; applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and defendants' properties; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Vinayaka Alloy Castings — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No,lOO ot 2O25

Between:

State bank of India,

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Sri Vinayaka Alloy Castings, Represented by its Proprietor Smt Karra Manila, C/o Ravi Babu,

¶11

Mr. Karra Manila, c/o Ravi Babu, aged about

¶12

35 years, occ: business, female,

¶13

Both are residents of

¶14

Shed no.B-2, Sy.No.337, IDA Rampur, Khazipet, Telangana - 504 151.

¶15

Also at:

¶16

R/o H. No., 1-52-1-245, 4th street, Bhavanipuram colony, chanda Nagar, Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the For the Applicant arangini Pisipati For the Defendants e

¶18

loA.L00/2O2s)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.90,17,985/-(Rupees Ninety Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty five only) (Rs.42,3O,97L1- + Rs.47,87pL4l-) with interest @ 14.15olo p.a with monthly rests from 04.03.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.49.00 lakhs and cash credit of rs.45 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 77.12.2022. The loan Facilities are secured by hypothecation of receivables, stocks, book debts, current assets etc more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 17.12.2022. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 04.LI.2024 and recall notice was several requests and demands, ding. Hence this OA.

¶22

¶23

lo^A.7OO/20251

¶24

Defendants No.1& 2 called absent and set exparte on 14.05.2025.

¶25

Sri Prathik Yadav, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex,A.1to A.11.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶28

Defendants No.1 & 2 remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, oFficial of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.11. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs,

¶29

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶30

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant ,17,985 I -(Rupees Ninety Lakhs undred and Eighty five x ^* 1g llAY 20fi Er raIA ^:J W,,,.f-p

¶31

(oA.1oo/202s)

¶32

only)^{(Rs.42,3O,971-l- +Rs.47,87,Ot41) with interest@} !4.15o/o^p.a from^{04.03.2025 till the date of realization'}

¶33

The Applicant bank^{is entitled} to proceed against^{the Hypothecated} movables as mentioned^{in the} schedule to OA^{towardsrealization of} the debt due;

¶34

The Applicant^{Bankis also entitledto proceedagainstthe person} and^properties of^{defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no'1} firm towards realization^{of the debt due'}

¶35

The Applicant^{Bankis entitledto the costs of the OA'}

¶36

12, The Applicant^{shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date} of receiPt of order.

¶37

13, Issue Recovery^{certificateaccordingly.}

¶38

Communicate^{a copy of the order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the P.A., tra srgned and^{pronouncedby mein the opencourton}

¶39

this the 19th day^{of l4ay,}

¶40

'1 ,,-'_ ria g i', :tli..::.
sd/-
itr e?
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
4,.
6r;i
od?lilic'Enn"
4

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Vinayaka Alloy Castings

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Vinayaka Alloy Castings

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri. Jala Chandraiah

State Bank of India versus Sri. Male Venkat Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Velagapuri Devakamma

State Bank of India versus M/S. Reddy Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Janatha Oil Depot

Ms Rishika Cotton Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India