Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S.Vamsi Filling Station

DRT2 Sept 2025OA/111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against the defendants for recovery of defaulted loans totaling Rs. 2,05,19,490/- along with interest and costs. The bank submitted evidence via a witness affidavit, while the defendants failed to file evidence or cross-examine the witness. Consequently, the evidence stood unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,05,19,490/- with interests; bank to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S.Vamsi Filling Station — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAy OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.111 of 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

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 Manager

¶6

Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Vamsi Filling Station, Represented by its proprietor, Smt Budda Saraswathi,

¶9

Wo^B. Kanakayya, Address : 5y.No.72,72/ E, 7 2/ EE, Bonakal road, Dhamsalapuram, Khammam district, TS -507 OO3.

¶10

Smt Budda Saraswathi, Wo^B. Kanakayya, Aged about 55 years, occ: business, Female, R/o H.No.20-S-39/1, Kothuru Bonakal road, Dhamsalapuram, Khammam District -507 003.

¶11

Also at

¶12

R/o Villa No.6 Sri Ram Hit Dha msal District

¶13

Defendants

¶14

(oA.No.111lzozs1

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

¶16

For the Applicant Smt Tarangini Pisipati For the Defendants Sri D. Raghavulu

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,0519,49ol- (Rupees Two crores

¶19

Five Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety only)

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.L,72,74,304/- under loan A/c.No.38979325719 with interest @ 15olo p.a with monthly rests from 03.03.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.4,39,237/- under loan A/c.No.3g577L7s2so with interest @ f f .25o/a p.a with monthly rests from 03.03.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶22

c) A sum of Rs.28,05,949/- under loan A/c.No.40636191663 with interest @ 11.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from 03.03.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶23

and in default for hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule "A &B'to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant Nor"+ .L:,,..._!lu^{proprietorshipfirm representedby} its proprietor d o.2 i"^. . av'a!]6d.loan t.rl . i r.-..:,;^,. 'i^(,:- of Rs.90 lakhs vide letter of arrangement &or.rz,ffis.^'"{ efendants hypothecated the f,Sgd

¶25

(OA.No.11U202s)

¶26

machinery sltuated in the place of business more fully described in the schedule to OA in favour of Applicant bank. The defendants mortgaged the Schedule B property and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation, guarantee agreement etc on 05.12.2019 and deposited the title deeds in favour of Applicant bank, The existing facility was enhanced by a loan of Rs.9 lakhs as GECL on 12.05.2020 and executed necessary documents. Further the defendants availed Rs.25.00 lakhs under GECL. 1 facility on Q9.12.2021. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2024 and issued recall notice dated 14.02.2025. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2,O5,L9,49O/- (Rupees Two Crores

¶27

Five Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety only)

¶28

with future interest @ 15% p.a and 11.25o/o p.a respectively from 03.03.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶29

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made i defendants denied the execution of documents and '/":''^- ' "' h y.qott+ecati o n of ;mash i n ery /^{movables. The defe} ndants denied the '.','ii. \ scneo'rdb^i. 1en tioned properties in favour of Applicant ,'1'moitga^g "'of' l, !uno 4,2 =t{+,nffi =r{ Ited by the defendants that they were regular ,:, . ,' ,". i:'Ir :.' - 'i'-"':: . ,." 'ⁱ⁷ ,.''..:f - i".,117 ..'?

¶30

(oA No.111/202s )

¶31

in repaying the loan amount and they denied the classification of account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines and contended that the OA is neither maintainable nor tenable. Hence prayed for d ismissa I of OA.

¶32

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Smt S. Kalyani Rathod, Manager of Bank as AW.1 and through her marked 29 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.29. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. In spite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 22.08.2025.

¶33

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶35

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶36

ii) To what rclicf ?

¶37

filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the defendants in the Written statement, it is very

¶38

ts have availed loan from

¶39

i*.,"J the Applicant Bank,

¶40

(OA. No.111/202s)

¶41

but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the schedule properties were not hypothecated nor mortgaged in favour of Applicant bank.

¶42

AW.l is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.29 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶43

Point No.ii)

¶44

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

¶45

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,O5,19,490/- (Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs

¶46

Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety only)

¶47

a) A sum of Rs.t,72,74,304/- under loan A/c.No.38979325719 with
m 03.03,2025 till the date of realization ;
ll*
0 2 stP ?trfi
tts
l\ t:'"

¶48

(OA. No.111l2025)

¶49

b) A sum of Rs.4,39,237/- under loan A/c.No.39577175250 with interest @ I 1.25% p.a from 03.03.2025 till the date of realization;

¶50

c) A sum of Rs.28,05,949/- under loan A/c.No.40636191663 with interest @l 11.25% p.a from 03.03.2025 till the date of realization;

¶51

The Appricant bank is entiiled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged schedure properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of thc debt due.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Issuc Recovcry ccrtificate accordingly.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶57

(Drctated to the P.A., rranscribcd by hcr, correctcd, srqn(id and pronounced by me in rhe open court on this the 2id day or Scpt, 2025)

¶58

sd/-

¶59

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

O2ilEPM' Ll,.e nTRu/copY- t=Z?/-
OR7J, ^"Afrff*,;|-IYDEEABAA,
6

State Bank of India v. M/S.Vamsi Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S.Vamsi Filling Station

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

Parunandi Mani versus Repco Home Finance Limited

M S Royal Engineers versus Small Industries Development Bank of India

Kommineni Malleshwari versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

Sri Sandrapalli Venkata Bipin Kumar versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Khammampati Seenaiah

Indian Bank versus M/S. Saltha Santhaya Transport