Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Araala Industries

DRT12 Sept 2025OA/193/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Origin Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 1.24 crore. The defendants were held jointly and severally liable, and the application was allowed after accounting for part payments.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,24,04,982 less part payments; entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and properties of defendants 2 & 3; costs awarded.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Araala Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRTBUNAL-T AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12rH DAy oF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRT GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.193 ot 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity !e1tre,^{Bus terminal complex,} Koti, Hyderabad - 50O 095. Represented by its Chief manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Araala Industries,

¶8

Represented by its Managing partner, Sri^{pVS prasad,} f,,late, ma]or] ll,oJ^{no:_14q_1.s0,rDA, mj[apu.,} phase-Il, Mallapur, Hyderabad _ 76.

¶9

Sri^pVSS prasad, s/o Sri Rama Murthy, male, major, R/o flat no.f_3, Anandam Heights, D.No.57_13_i S/B/ L,

¶10

2nd west lane, Gethsemane ihurch, New postal colony, patamata, vr;ayawada _ 520 O1O

¶11

Sri^p, T. Ramachandra Rao, s/o Sri Rama Murthy, male, major, R./o S_2, Anandam Heights, D.No.57-13-15/B/1,

¶12

311.y_"-.!]r,"",.^{Gethie mlne ch u rch,} l,lew postal colo

¶13

Vijayawada -
Defendants
f'f
il*
12stPm :
iiq,
W-*..*9

¶14

(OA. No.193/2023)

¶15

Counsel for the^parties:

¶16

For the Applicant Sri PV Satyanarayana Defendants 1 & 2 Sri G. Srinivas Defendant No.3 Sri ABK Siva Kasulu

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,24,O4,9g2l_ (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Four thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty two) i.e.,

¶19

a) A sum of Rs.1,01,72 ,507/- with interest @ 16.750/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs.10,03,535/- with interest @ 16.75olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶21

c) A sum of Rs.12,28,940/- with interest @ 9.40olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ; and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants no.1 is a firm represented by its managing partner/ defendant no.2 has avaired cash credit and term roan of Rs.76 lakhs on 20.0t.2 nts 2 & 3 stood as guarantors to

¶23

the loan avai rm. The defendants executed

¶24

agreement and guarantee agreement

¶25

;1"'"r'IT#'fi?t:"'3 W'

¶26

(OA.No.193/2023)

¶27

dated 20.01.2018. subsequenfly the defendants avaired additionar loan of i,e', GECL rimit of Rs.30.00 rakhs vide retter of arrangement 11.06.2020. The defendants mortgaged the schedure mentioned properties in favour of Appricant bank. It is submitted by Appricant bank that the defendants paid repayments i.e., a payment of Rs.25,767/- on 06.06.2022 and Rs.4,1O,OOO/_ on 28.03.2023. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants has availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was crassified as NpA on L4.rL.2022. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the Appricant bank issued regar notice dated 13.04.2023, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.l,2 4,O4pgZl _ (Rupees one crore Twenty Four Lakhs Four thousarid Nine Hundred and Eighty two) with further interest @ L6.75o/o p.a and @9.40olo^p.a from date of filing of oA ti[ the date of rearization, Hence the OA.

¶28

The Defendant No.1 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It is admitted that the defendants avaired the credit facilities and executed necessary documents. It is tontended tnai tne defendant no.1 paid all dues and closed the term roan account and paid a su akhs paid in three accounts regularly. It is this T passed interim orders in SA.44B/2023 nS the defeiidant to .20.00 lakhs in two installments. As

¶29

(oA.No.193/2023)

¶30

per the SA orders, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs on 28.L2.2O23. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶31

The Defendant No.3 filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It is admitted that the defendants availed the credit facilities and executed necessary documents. It is contended that the applicant bank obtained various blank documents from the defendants. It is contended that this Tribunal passed interim orders in sA.448/2023 directing the defendant to pay Rs.20.00 lakhs in two instalrments. As per the SA orders, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.20'00 lakhs. Hence prayed for dismissar of oA. Defendant no.3 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶32

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶33

Heard the arguments.

¶34

5, Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) To what relief ?

¶37

Point No.i):

¶38

Smt K. Geeta Lakshmi, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearry deposed about the liability of the defendants. ExhigE;J\l-lo A.21 exhibited by the Appticant bank ctearty estabtish a part a^'Sum of Rs.1,OL,72,SO7 /-. il* 12 sEP M !ir, i'r^.<1 \i \4,6-^'-4 -e^-€e1 4

¶39

(OA.No.193/2023)

¶40

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.3 examined himself as DW.l, he has not filed any documents, hence his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant no.3 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 Applicant bank makes clear that all the rerevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normar course of transaction. The defendants very vaguery contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are riabre to pay the oA craim. considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenabre. Hence the appricant bank is entired to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

B' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as u nder:

¶43

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,24,O4,ggl/_ (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Four thousand Nine Hundred and Eaghty two) i.e.,

¶44

a) A sum I07/-^{.with'interest@ 16.71o/op.a from} date of of realization; dP . --t | ix l*4-. rt 12 sEP 'w :

¶45

(OA.No.193/2023)

¶46

b) A sum of Rs.10,03,535/- with interest @ 16.75olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶47

c) A sum of Rs.12,28,940/- with interest @ 9.4Oo/o p.a from clate of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶48

LESS A SUM OF RS.1,01,72,5O7 /_ received as part payments.

¶49

The Applicant bank is entiHed to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedure to oA towards rearisation of the debt due;

¶50

The Appricant bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 Company towards realizatioh of the debt due.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶54

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 tn the open court on this the 12s day of Sept.2025)

¶56

sd/-

¶57

6%<br>; lzslpzm ;
W*#'

¶58

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

*"W,,$ll,y

State Bank of India v. M/S. Araala Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Araala Industries

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

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.

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

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