Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Claps Oil Tech Pvt. Ltd.

DRT7 Aug 2025OA/192/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of ₹5.47 crore outstanding loan from corporate borrower and personal guarantors, evidencing default and creating joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay ₹5.47 crore with interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and persons/properties of Defendants 2-6.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Claps Oil Tech Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE 7rH DAy oF AUGUST,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.l92 ot 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, SARB, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095,TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Claps Oil Techpvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing director, #334,H.No.8 -2-334/t3, Road no.3, Behind TV9 office, Banjara Hills,

¶9

Hyderabad - 500 034.

¶10

2, Mr. D. Lakshmi prasad, s/o Chandra Mouli, aged 35 years, Male,

¶11

H.No. 1-7-658/D, Ramnagar, Hyderabad - 500 O2O.

¶12

3, Ms. D. Neeraja,
D/o Mohan Murali, aged 30 years,
Female, H.No. 1-7-659/D, Ramnagar,
Hyderabad - 500 020.
4. SmtSrilalithaKallepalli,
78:"
w/o Late Chandra Sekhar Kumar
wF.r%<br>aged major, female, flat no.12B
lasmine tower, Serene County
olAul1E
Avenue, Gachibowli, Hyderaba
rrr
rr.3$,fur*#

¶13

(OA.192 of 202s)

¶14

Sri Sai Prabhav, S/o Late Chandra Sekhar Kumara Swamy, male, flat no.128, Jasmine towers, Serene cou nty Avenue, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500 032.

¶15

Sri le Pradidh, s/o Late Chandra Sekhar Kumar Swamy, male, flat no.128, Jasmine towers, Serene county Avenue, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500 032. Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶17

Sri C. Prabhakar Expa rte

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.S,47,73,230/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Seventy Three thousand Two hundred and thirty only) with further interest @ 10.90% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in t to OA.

¶20

As per c a vcrmcnls rn th rl ication, the Applicant Bank states that De ri Chandra Sekhar Kumar Swamy ".t[J^{ltB 4dho}

¶21

availed .200.00 lakhs and LC facility of 519:l-:ffi

¶22

(oA.192 of 2025)

¶23

Rs'500.00 lakhs totaring a sum of Rs.700.00 rakhs on 16.06.2023. Defendant no.1 is the principal borrower, defendants 2 & 3 are mortgagors and defendants no.2 to 4 arong with Sri chandra Sekhar Kumar Swamy stood as personal guarantors. To secure due repayment of various loan facilities, the defendant no.1 company hypothecated all movable assets more fully described in the schedule to OA. Defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage on 16.06.2023 by way of deposit of title deeds in respect of schedule property_Il to OA. Subsequently Sri Chandra Sekhar Kumar Swamy expired leaving behind defendants no. 4 to 6 as his regar heirs. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NpA and issued legal notice dared 07.04.202s. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 17.07.2025.

¶25

Sri P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A. 13.

¶26

Heard plicant Bank. ;^atmcm I %,mz

¶27

(OA.192 of 202s)

¶28

6' 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?

¶29

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.13. 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.

¶30

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,47,73,23O/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Seventy Three thousand Two hundred and thirty only) with further interest @ 10.90% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶31

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶32

and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towa debt due;

¶33

O7ill}2W :

¶34

(oA.192 of 202s)

¶35

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 6 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7tf day of Aug, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

&
. i, ,l ,'1
- al
,1

¶45

rRUE COPY
,;ll:,;lw,v

State Bank of India v. M/S. Claps Oil Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Claps Oil Tech Pvt. 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

Similar cases

Mohd Salahuddin Mukarram versus M/S Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/S. Boddam Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mrs. Thala Mamatha

State Bank of India versus M/S.Sree Sainath Engineerings Works

State Bank of India versus Sri. Akash Kumar Sonker

State Bank of India versus Sri Raghavendra Traders