Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Radha Madhav Automobils Private Ltd.

DRT27 Mar 2025OA/19/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by SBI for recovery of Rs.15.57 crore along with interest. Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the OA, declared respondents jointly and severally liable, and directed realization from mortgaged properties and estate of deceased guarantor.

What did the court decide?

Applicants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.15,57,57,407.37 with interest @ 17.50% per annum from filing date; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Radha Madhav… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 27rH DAy OF MARCH, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

OA.No.19 of 2O24

Between:

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Management Branch-II (SAMB-II), first floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Center, Bus Terminal complex, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, Rep by its Asst. General Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. RadhaMadhav Automobiles Private Ltd, represented by its Managing Director, defendants No. 2 hereinD.No.5-110, NH-5, Besides Ap Seeds Corporation, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada- 521 108. NTR district, Andhra^pradesh.

¶10

Mr. Magantivenkata Srinivas, S/o Late Sri Magantisubrahmanyam, Aged about 61 years, male, Occ: business and managing director Of 1't defendant company. D. No.40-15-B/2, Nandamuri colony, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520 010. NTR district, Andhra^pradesh.

¶11

Sri MagantiMadhusudhana Sharma, S/o Late Sri Magantisubrahmanyam, Aged about 59 years, male, Occ: business & director of 1st Defendant company, D.No.60-4-4, 1't lane, behind Siddartha Arts College,

¶12

ft*%.S
L}.-
!fi
2 7 ilAn 2025

¶13

(oA.No.19/2024)

¶14

Siddhartha nagar, Vijayawada - 520 010. NTR district, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

Sri Magantivenugopal, S/o Late Sri SriMagantiSubrahmanyam, Aged about 63 years, male, Occ: business and managing director Of 1't defendant company. D.No.40-15-B/2, Nandamuri colony, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520 010. NTR district, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

Sri Maga ntiChandramouli, S/o Late Sri Magantisubrahmanyam, Aged about 54 years, male, Occ: business and managing director Of 1't defendant company. D.No.40- 1 5-B/2, Nandamuri colony, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520 010. NTR district, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

SmtMagantiSarada, w/o Late Sri Magantisubrahmanyam, Aged about 78 years, female, Occ: business D.No.40-15-B/2, Nandamuri colony, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520 010. NTR district, Andhra^pradesh.

¶18

SmtNethi Janaki, w/o Sri NethiSeshadrisekhar, aged about 56 years, female, occ: business, D.No.3-4-1013/29, Barkathpura, Near Kachiguda Junior college, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. TS.

¶19

B. M/s. Krishnapriya Automobiles Private Ltd, represented by its Managing Directors, defendants No. 2,3 & 6 hereinD.No.4-IS:-, Besides AP Seeds Corporation, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada- 521 10g. NTR district, Andhra^pradesh.

¶20

¶21

M/s. Yashoda Krishna Automobiles Private Ltd, represented by its

¶22

(OA.No.19/2024)

¶23

Managing Director, defendants No, 2 hereinD.No.5-110, NH-5, Besides AP Seeds Corporation, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada- 521 108. NTR district, Andhra^pradesh.

¶24

M/s. Radha Krishna Automobiles Private Limited, represented by Managing Director, the defendant No.2 herein, D.No.5-110, NH5 Besides AP Seeds Corporation, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada- 521 108. NTR district, Andhra^pradesh.

¶25

Defendants

¶26

Counsel for the Parties:

¶27

For the Applicant

¶28

For the Defendants

¶29

Sri G. PrabhakarSarma

¶30

Ch. Venkat Raman

¶31

ORDER

¶32

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.15,57,S7AO7.g7ps (Rupees Fifteen crores Fifty seven Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Four hundred seven and paise Thirty seven onry) with interest @ 17.50o/o p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA tiil the date oF realization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶33

verments in the application, the Applicant Bank states

¶34

ffi&* .1 is a Company. The defendant no.6 is the mother

¶35

j ?^{pf,f,mfgffFntsf} o 5 and 7 herein. Defendant no.2 is the managing .J"4 ': 'endant no.3 is the director of Defendant no.1

¶36

Wffiq

¶37

(oA.No.19/2024)

¶38

company. The defendant no.1 company represented by directors availed working capital loan facilities under cash credit^(hyp) for^a sum of Rs.15.00 crores and Adhoc loan of Rs.15 crores and term^loan of Rs.0.05 crores from the year 2012 onwards.^{Defendant no.2} guaranteed the repayment of the said loan facilities of Rs.28.75 crores and executed guarantee agreement. Defendants no. 2 to 5 and Sri MagantiSubrahmanyam guaranteed the repayment^of Rs.28.75 Crores and executed^guarantee agreement dated 27 .03.2019. The defendant no,1 company represented by defendant no.2 availed renewed existing loan of^{Rs.13.50crores,} Adhoc loan of Rs.3.37 cores, dropline OD of rs.2.99 crores and term loan of Rs.0.02 with overall limit of Rs.19.BB crores on^L6.9.2020. DeFendant no.1 and 9 company, represented by director,^the defendant no.2 extended equitable mortgage on t5.12.2020^and created mortgage of schedule A^property to OA. All the^stocks, current assets, receivables were hypothecated in favour of^Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed^to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank^was constrained to classify the account as NPA on^16.09.2022 and^issued demand notice dated 19.09.2022. Inspite of several^{requests and} demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding.^{Hence this}

¶39

,t
2 7 llAR 206
4

¶40

(oA.No.19/2024)

¶41

Sri Ch. Venkat Raman filed vakalath on behalf of defendants no.1 to 10 but not filed Written statement.

¶42

Sri D. Sreenivas, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.27.

¶43

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶44

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?

¶45

Counsel for defendants 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.A1 to A.27. 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 and costs.

¶46

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

¶47

ants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the nk a total sum of Rs.15,57,57,4O7.37ps (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Four

¶48

(oA.No.19/2024)

¶49

hundred Seven and paise Thirty seven only) with interest @

¶50

L7.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶51

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as described in schedule "A &8" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶52

The Applicant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to7 and properties of defendant no.1, B to 10 firms towards realization of the debt due. However the Applicant bank can proceed only to the extent of estate devolved upon the legal heirs/ defendants No. 2 to 7 from the deceased guarantor late Sri MagantiSubrahmanyam.

¶53

The Applicant Bank is entiued 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

Issue Recovery certificate 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 cou.t on this the 27th day of March, 2025) sd/-

¶58

(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND)

¶59

PRES!DING OFFICER

¶60

¶61

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND) PRES!DING OFFICER

¶62

J ?7ilAnzu5 I ,/?
(!1 )
YW
Rfo-,*"uW
S;xfD

State Bank of India v. M/S. Radha Madhav Automobils Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Radha Madhav Automobils Private Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Rajendra Paper Corporation

State Bank of India versus V.S.R. Steel Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri. Muppana Nagesh

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Jeevan Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri .Chedalu Satyanarayana

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Sai Computers