Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kanakadhara Designs (Opc) Private Limited

DRT12 Sept 2025OA/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. T. at Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues. The court found the defendants' defense of limitation and lack of proof regarding overpayment untenable, holding them jointly liable to pay the claimed amount with interest and proceed against secured assets.

What did the court decide?

Directs defendants to pay total sum of Rs.54,36,262/- with specified interest rates; allows proceeding against hypothecated movables and properties of Defendants 1 and 2; issues recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kanakadhara Designs (Opc)… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBE& 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.128 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Kanakadhara Designs (OPC) Private Limited, Represented by its director, Smt Kocharalakota Madhuri,

¶10

D. No.8-2- 120 /r2O/r/L50,

¶11

2nd floor , Noor nagar, Roadno.10, banjara hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

¶12

Smt Kocharalakota Madhuri, w/o Murali Krishna Kocharalakota, flat no.78, Marigold serene county, Telecom nagar, Near Urdu University Gachibowli, Serilingampally, K.v, Ranga reddy, TS - 500 032.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Sri C. Sreedhar

¶15

Sri V. Sethu Madhava Rao

¶16

(OA. No.12812024)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.54,36,262l- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two) i.e.,

¶19

a) A sum of Rs.27,77,277/- with interest @ 14.40o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs..17,10,048/- with interest @ 16.15olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶21

c) A sum of Rs.6,21,443l- with interest @ 11.25olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶22

d) A sum of Rs.3,27,494l- with interest @ t4.4Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ; and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants no.1 is a private limited company represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 has availed cash credit and term loan of Rs.65 lakhs on 09.05.2018. The defendants executed m hypothecation and guarantee agreement uently the cash credit, term loan and GECL .42 lakhs on L2.L0.2020 and executed

¶24

¶25

(oA.No.12812024)

¶26

supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation. Again the existing rimits were enhanced to Rs.7B rakhs on 04.03.2021. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendant has availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 27.0g.2023. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated t3.02.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.54,3 6,2621- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two) with further interest @ L4.4oo/o p.a and @16.15olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶27

3' The Defendants fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA' It is admitted that the defendants avaired the credit facirities and executed necessary documents, It is contended that the Appricant bank obtained printed brank stamped roan documents time to time from the defendants. It is further areged that the defendant no.1 made so may payments which are in^.excess of loan amounts avaired by defendants. Hence prayed for dismissar of oA. Defendant no.2 examined herself as DW.1 but not filed any documents.

¶28

" -' :L
,j''. . ---':"- 'ait;." :,. ^.,S.
3. r nave,ffid thst6.r;u'l{i;.haced on record,
lj.+ u
rl;i .,ir .. l2SfP?PS '"if"ii
;. .z;,.-66g.t .,o_S7.1P q.n'.f
.,-.i'
"i1- ' i..'1.' ;
"r,fqgJd:'-'

¶29

(oA. No.128/2024)

¶30

Heard the arguments.

¶31

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) To what relief ?

¶34

Point No.i):

¶35

sri Manjul Dixit, Manager/ AW,1 who was examined on beharf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.24 exhibited by the Appricant bank crearry estabrish the liability of the defendants.

¶36

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.2 examined herserf as DW,1, she has not fired any documents, hence her evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendant no.2 having taken the plea that they made some part payments and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to place any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Appricant bank makes crear that ail the relevant documents are executed by the crefendants in the normar course of transaction. The defendants very vaguery contended that pa rticulars not correct. But as per the statement ,nG;Bu o"igI.ouniiiii.$iubte to pay the oA ctaim. considerins all the cifcum?t?n3F.p hfl nion that the defense taken by the

¶37

(oA.No.128/202a)

¶38

defendants^{is not tenable.Hence the applicant bank is entitledto} claim the oA^{amount from defendants.Therefore,the oA claim} deserves to^{be allowed againstthe defendants'}

¶39

Point No.ii)

¶40

In the^{result,the present Original application is allowed with costsas} under:

¶41

The Defendants^{are jointlyand severally liable to pay to Applicant} BankatotalsumofRs.54,35,262l-(RupeesFiftyFourLakhs

¶42

Thirty Six Thousand^{Two Hundred and Sixty Two) i'e"}

¶43

a) A sum of^{Rs.27,77,277/- with interest @ 14'40%p'a from date} of filing of OA till^{the date of realization;}

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.17,10,048/-^{with interest @ 16'15o/o p'a from date} of filing of OA^{till the date of realization;}

¶45

c) A sum of^{Rs.6,21,443l- with interest@ 11'25olop'a from date} of filing of OA^{till the date of realization;}

¶46

d) A sum of Rs.3,27,494/-^{with interest@ 14'40olop'a from date} of filing of OA^{till the date of realization;}

¶47

The ApPlicant^{bank isentitledto Proceedagainst thehypothecated} m ova bles in the schedule to^{OA towards} realisation of

¶48

the
7lP
*
12 stP !i16
,
kh,.'t-

¶49

(oA.No.128/2024)

¶50

10' The Appric€int bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 Company towards realization of the debt due.

¶51

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

¶52

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶53

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶54

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶55

(Dictated to the p.A,, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of Sept,2025)

¶56

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

TRUE^COPY

¶58

tr"w
u * 12 sEP 2125 *
rtl ai
W,..gz

¶59

,;l:;ffi'v

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kanakadhara Designs (Opc) Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kanakadhara Designs (Opc) 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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Y.N. Motors

M S Vishal Agri Seeds versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Kannam Nagaraju versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Kapula Kanaparthy Farmers Services Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Aindhri Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Araala Industries