Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils

DRT1 Sept 2025OA/114/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Originating Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues against M/s. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils and Mrs. Ayyavarla Neeraja for non-payment of loans secured by hypothecation.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.27,38,208.03 with future interest; authority to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

rN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE lST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.114 ot 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, MG Road branch, Armoor, M.G. Road, Near new Bus Stand, Armoor, Nizamabad district- 503 224. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils, Represented by its^proprietor Mrs. Ayyavarla Neeraja,

¶9

H.No. 14-06, Mamidipalty, Mamidipally "X" road, Armoor, Nizamabad, TS - 503 224.

¶10

Mrs. Ayyavarla Neeraja, Wo^Mr. Ayyavarla Limbadri, Aged 36 years, occ: business, Female, H.No.9-2411, pachala Nadukuda village,Velpur mandal, Narkhoda, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 307.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the^pa rties:

¶13

For the Applicant : Sri J. Sai Krishna Rao

¶14

For the Defendantsthe DefendantsDefendants : Exparte

¶15

For the Defendantsthe DefendantsDefendants

¶16

The Apptica
t OA against Defendants for
recovery o a.+total sum of Rs.27.:
: [ 1 srP mzs- -'* ,208.03ps (Rupees Twenty
,4
,t.
l -v . L.}
"- *--', :l( 11 4..'/
'. .i. ':L -..1:j ..:.'
o.- -:.;-r"-:.._.,.",. -":::: ; ,;" .;
'.r, '..- ': \j.j"

¶17

(OA. No.114/2025)

¶18

Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Eight and paise Three only) i.e.,

¶19

a) A sum of Rs.18,14,389.19ps with future interest @ 14.40% p.a with half yearly rests from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs.5,78,969.21ps with future interest @ 11.65olo p.a with half yearly rests from date of OA till the date of realization; and in default for sale of hypothecated movables mentioned in the

¶21

schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed business loan for a sum of Rs.20,00 lakhs and repayable in 80 EMIs @ Rs.35,746l- and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation hypothecating the stocks and receivables as mentioned in the schedule to OA. The defendants availed cash credit and term loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs repayable in 58 EMIs @ Rs.10,143/-. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and legal notice was issued on 01.10.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants call on 25.07.2025.

¶24

01sEP 2m

¶25

(oA. No.1141202s)

¶26

Sri Karthi Goud, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶30

Defendants 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.10, In view of the above, I hord that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interesf and costs.

¶31

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.27,3g,20g.O3ps (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Eight and paise Three only) i.e.,

¶32

a)Asu moF future interest @ 14.40% p.a

¶33

from datr hlization;

¶34

;^olsEP'fiF I W,--d

¶35

(OA. No.1141202s)

¶36

b) A sum of Rs.5,78,969.21ps with future interest @ 11.650lo p.a

¶37

from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶38

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶39

movables as mentioned in the schedu le to OA towards realization of

¶40

the debt due.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and

¶42

properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶45

of receipt of order.

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

Iflfii:""i.l",iii^{j;t;,ji:1T!3i,bvher,corrected,sisnedand pronounced by me} in the open court on

¶49

dn
,r+
81SEPm

¶50

sd/-
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

TRIJE COP}? )
0 ! 1)r'^a1v>
AsstfagHt/ar
oliT-t, ttYgEnASilt

State Bank of India v. M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepelli Mahesh

Korutla Sujatha versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Mamidi Bajanna Para Boiled Industries, Rep by its partner: Mamidi Gajanand Reddy S/o Late M Bajanna versus State Bank of India