Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Mohana Krishna Traders

DRT15 May 2025OA/175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order adjudged an OA filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of a defaulted housing loan facility of approximately Rs. 5.36 crores including interest. The Tribunal examined evidence and, finding the claim established, held the bank entitled to recovery from the hypothecated assets and properties of the individual defendants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 5,36,46,182/- with interest; bank to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties as per schedule.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Mohana Krishna Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15rH DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.175 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 authorized officer

...

Applicant

VERSUS

Sri Mohana Krishna Traders, Partnership firm, represented By its partners GadirajuSrinivasa Raju and MuliGangi Reddy, Off: D.No.16-3-2-3, plot no.952, Vasanthanagar, KPHB, Hyderabad,TS - 500 085.

¶11

Mr. GadirajuSrinivasa Raju, s/o Pullam Raju, aged about 56 years, occ: business, male, R/o D.No.2-3812, Rajula street, Near Airtel Tower, Palakoderu, Mogallu, West Godavari district Andhra Pradesh - 534 209.

¶12

3, Mulicangi Reddy, s/o GangiReddy, aged about 43 years, occ: businessr male, R/o MIG -819, KPHB, phase-3, Kukatpally, bad - 72.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel for th
4.
For t he A rpp.1p rc a nt
For t he D )r e fenn d a nts *
1 5 ilhfifzs
Defe:n d'a n ( n o , . i2
\

¶15

SmtTa rang iniPisipati

Expa rte

Sri D. Raghavulu

(OA.No.usl2024)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.5,36,46,182/- (Rupees Five Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Forty six thousand One hundred and Eighty two only) with interest @ 19.25olo p.a with monthly rests from 03.05.2024 till the date of realization 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 partnership firm represented by its partners/ defendants 2 & 3 availed housing loan of Rs.4.95 crores vide sanction of credit facility dated 29.06.2022. The defendants hypothecated entire current assets and created equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned properties more fully described in the schedule A and B to OA. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.01.2024 and issued demand notice dated 0t.02.2024. Inspite'of several requests and demands, the clear the outstanding. Hence this OA {op-"w I ,r s ilAY 71t6 I Jl. , ftb-,,,*s7 S;;rSP

¶22

(OA. No.17sl2024)

¶23

Defendants No.1 & 3 called absent and set exparte on 02.01.2025. Sri D. Raghavulu filed vakalath on behalf of defendant no.2 but not filed WS.

¶24

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

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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?

¶27

Defendants 1 & 3 remained exparte. Counsel for defendant no.2 filed vakalath but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to A.11. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest

¶28

and costs.

¶29

B. In ls allowed with costs, as under:

¶30

lOA.No.!7s/202a].

¶31

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,36,46,182/- (Rupees Five Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Forty six thousand One hundred and Eighty two only) with interest @ 19.25% p.a from 03.05.2024 till the date of realization.

¶32

The Appllcant 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;

¶33

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

13, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on
{,f" -W -out\ sd/-
lte (G. GOPTCHAND)
J 1silAYM I ffi, PRESIDING OFFICER
kh"*n9 4

¶39

State Bank of India v. Sri. Mohana Krishna Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Mohana Krishna Traders

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

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, versus M/S.. Suraksha Engineering Works

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ramanarao Nibhanapuri

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mahendra Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Sri. Karthikeya Constructions and Developers

State Bank of India versus Sri. Konne Sathyanarayana

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Geeta Priyanka Vyde