Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S.Veda Infrastructure

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/101/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application against five respondents. The Tribunal confirmed the loan default and directed recovery of the principal sum of Rs.1,10,25,562/ plus future interest, authorizing action against hypothecated property and the personal assets of guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,10,25,562/- with 15% p.a. interest; provision authorized for sale of hypothecated/mortgaged property and execution against personal assets.

State Bank of India versus M/S.Veda Infrastructure — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19rH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.1O1 ot 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-I, 2nd floor, Upstairs of TSRTC Building Commuters centre, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Veda Infrastructure Represented by its proprietor, Sri Bandi Sudhakar Rao, s/o Sri B. Giriraju, aged major, occ: business, s-s-s1/9/s/KG-c/s04, Flat no.504, block - C, Karukonda green, Vivekananda Nagar, Kutatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO O72.

¶9

Sri Bandi Sudhakar Rao, s/o Sri B. Giriraju, aged about 40 years, s-s-st/9ls/KG-c/s04, Flat no.504, block - C, Karukonda green, Vivekananda Nagar, Kutatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 0 72. 3. Sri Bandi Sai Mohan, s/o Sri Bandi Sudhakar Rao, (s^{-- "-'#} rtF" aged about 40 years, &S s-s-sL/9/s/KG-c/s04, Flat no.504, block - C, E^?9JUilAfi : Karukonda green, Viveka nanda Nagar, Kutatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 07 W*#'

¶10

(oA. No.101/202s)

¶11

' 4. Smt Kancharla Geetha, w/o Sri Bandi Mohan, aged major, s-s-sr/9/s/KG-c/s04, Flat no.504, block - C, Karukonda green, Vivekananda Nagar, Kutatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO 072.

¶12

Defenda nts

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶15

Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal Expa rte

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,1O,25,562l-^(Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Twenty Five thousand Five Hundred and Sixty two only) with future interest @ 15olo^p.a with monthly rests^From 25.02,2025 till the date of realizationand in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged^property as mentioned^{in the} schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant^Bankstates that defendant no.1 is a firm represented by its^proprietor / defendant no.2 and defendants 3 & 4 stood as^{guarantors to the} loan transaction. The-defendbiits-bvailed cash credit^loan of^Rs.1.00 ! crore vide t.tt r,/,ff';;".tig ,BnNs.os.2oz3 and^executed asreement of lofi'drcumrld/ojbfiiffi,"n, gfprantee asreement etc^on a ,J,Juil2m 16.10.2023. thdrd6sd6s h credit fac ili it! i ty wasTq$cured by hypothecation of

¶19

(oA.No.101/202s)

¶20

stocks and book debts and was also secured by equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned property. The defendants deposited the title deeds on 08.04.202t of schedule property in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and legal notice was issued on 26.02.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 11.06.2025.

¶22

Sri R. Loganatham, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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?

¶25

Defendants remalned exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Ban of the Applicant Bank was examined and he ex ,-"i&i8n, ts as Ex.A1 to A.13. In view of le,:.:,,

¶26

the abov Bank has established their claim ^"'1 U'5ffmoo"

¶27

made in' nts and hence the Applicant Bank

¶28

(oA.No.101/202s)

¶29

is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶30

B, In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,10,25,562/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Twenty Five thousand Five Hundred and Sixty two only) with future interest @ 15% p.a from 25.02.2025 till the date of rea lization.

¶31

9, The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶32

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants Mo.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶34

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

14, _Cplfil1gn,Bftiq copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by fne in the open court on

¶38

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S.Veda Infrastructure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S.Veda Infrastructure

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 Mr. Krishna Venkatesh

M/S. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation versus M/S. Jgb Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Devara Suresh Rao

N Kesava Reddy versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Mr. Madepalli Pratap Reddy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Precise Design and Engineering