Allowed

State Bank of India v. Janaki Appliances Private Limited

DRT20 May 2025OA/108/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of defaulting loan amounts and permitted actions against hypothecated assets and properties of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Defendants cleared jointly and severally liable to pay total recovery sum of Rs.3,07,05,132/- with future interest; Proceedings against hypothecated properties allowed; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Janaki Appliances… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.1O8 ot 2O2S

¶5

Between:

¶6

State bank of India, Stre-ssed Assets Recovery branch, 2"" floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. TS. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Janaki Appliances private Limited, Represented by its Directors -1)^{SmtMaddipati Janaki,} 2) Mr, Maddipati Surya^'prakash Rao,

¶10

Mr. Maddipati Janaki, w/o y.Surya prakash Rao, aged about 48 years, occ; business, fema le,

¶11

Maddipati Surya prakash Rao, s/o M. Kesava Rao, aged about 55 years, occ: business, male,

¶12

All are residents of _D-44,^{Phase IV (Extn)} IDA Jeedimeila, Hyderabad _ 55.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

SmtTaranginipisipati Exparte

¶15

(oA.108/212sl

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3,O7,O5,132l_ (Rupees Three Crores Seven Lakhs Five Thousand One Hundred and Thirty two only)i.e.,

¶18

a) A sum of Rs.43,52,363/- under loan account no.419g5692121with interest @ 19olo p.a with monthly rests from 04.03.2025ti11 the date of realization ;

¶19

b) A sum of Rs.2,63,52,769/- under loan account no.4L7OS4SgOg4 with interest @ 19olo p.a with monthly rests from 04.03.202s tiil the date of realization ;

¶20

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property 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 private Limited company represented by its directors/ defendants no.2 & 3 avaired cash crecrit of Rs.230.00 rakhs and Rs.20.00 lakhs as non fund based limit vide letter of

¶22

z:#!9*gment^{dated 27.02.2023.The defendantsexecuted} loan cum hypothecation, guarantee agreement dated

¶23

Sor.roi?t\he defendants hypothecated the stocks, book debts,

¶24

,^",f 2 0 Jl,il'#L*"s,i"o machinerv more furv described in schedure A and

¶25

; E - oS schedule propertv B to oA. rhe derendants executed

¶26

fr}t-X*affi S;ul9

¶27

(oA.1O8/202s1

¶28

supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 08'06'2023' After avairing the roan facirities, the ctefendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NpA on 29.06.2024 and recall notice was issued on 01.03.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 14.05,2025.

¶30

4' sri R. Loganathan, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW'1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶33

entiUed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶34

prayed for?

¶35

7' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case oF the Appricant Bank, AW'1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined

¶36

'^{'1 ':-j::'_' ''-'}

¶37

-.,-^{-,s{rg heBhioiteo rerevant} documents as Ex.A1 to A,21. In view of

¶38

.,^.;t"i ..,;..^' .,*^''t.,. thiiiabove, t'n"oto tnut the Appricanr Bank has estabrished their craim

¶39

itⁱ

¶40

ii : Z ti'it! i16ge olXsainst the Derendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to r:efover the ctaim made in the oA with future interest

¶41

\r1,., ,, t,..,.;;',,,' und aortd_ .. r.l.r' '". ':'"'' '.

¶42

¶43

(oA.108/202s)

¶44

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

¶45

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3,O7,OS,1'gZ/- (Rupees Three Crores Seven Lakhs Five Thousand One Hundred and Thirty two only)i.e.,

¶46

a) A sum of Rs.43,52,363/_ under loan account no.41985692 121with interest @ 19olo p.a from 04.03.2025 tiil the date of realization ;

¶47

b) A sum of Rs.2,63,52,769/- under loan account no.4t705459094 with interest @ 19olo p.a from 04.03.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶48

The Applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the Hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to

¶49

OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶50

10' The Appricant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2& 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶51

Applicant Bank is entiued to the costs of the OA.

¶52

,,:rne Appll( hall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receiBt

¶53

¶54

(oA.108/202s)

¶55

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶57

(Dictated to the P A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20s day of May,2O2S)

¶58

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

trFx#
,Jlf-l';,$*:

State Bank of India v. Janaki Appliances Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Janaki Appliances Private Limited

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 M/S. Janatha Oil Depot

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

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

Smt Kade Jyothi and another versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Sri Ashpa Printers

Abdullabin Mohammed Baharmous versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.