Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sai Honda

DRT15 Apr 2025OA/217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against several defendants and M/s. Sri Sai Motors for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 30,77,186 along with interest and costs, holding the bank established its claim. Defendants failed to file written statements. Judgment dated April 15, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 30,77,186 plus interest and costs; recovery certificate issued; rights over mortgaged properties and personal properties enforced.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Honda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15rH DAy OF A,RI L, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.2t7 ot ZO24

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2n-d floor, TSRTC Bus Teiminal complex (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Sri Sai Honda, Represented by its proprietor Sri BandiMadhu, major, 6_393, Near Ambedkar statue, Bhupalpally road, parkal, Warangal district - 506 164. 2. Sri BandiMadhu, :/.o ?aldisampath,^{major, mate,} R/o H.No.18-66, Goudj street, Parkal, Warangal dist_ 506 164.

¶8

SmtBandiSwarupa,
w/o BandiSampath, female,
IIrdJor
major , R/o H.No.18-66, Gouda str &,€L$.sirEdfd{S$t eqs f fi,,, $,i;rr1':., .l;;l - _
4. Sri Parkal, Warangal Ba ndisampath, ndiSampath, dist- 506 164.--rf :,' .:,. n. .rii:l- - o:i:r.t ,,'1 .::;::' :::::' 'i'i:nr"', uoF,i..',,etlti .'. .' 1;l
,i,,*
;,1, i
s/o R/o BandiKanakaiah, H.No.1B-66,, Gouda male, street, maigr.,.,. It' I 1 S ApB 'ii-:'! 2-UI
.? i,
Parkal, Warangal dist_ 506 1ei. ii, ,,,,{ S,,f,ii
.-I - .
Ij;k-, \ -**ryi.:
' '..i,{
", f

¶9

(OA. No.217l2024)

¶10

M/s. Sri Sai Motors, Represented by its proprietor Sri BandiMadhu, 6-393, Near Ambedkar statue, Bhupalpally road, parkal, Warangal district - 506 164.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants 1,2 & 5 Defendants 3 & 4

¶13

: Sri P.V. Satyanarayana : Sri C. Shantappa Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.30,77,1g6l_ (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand One hundred and Eighty Six only) with interest @ 14.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 along with defendant no.3 availed cash credit limit of Rs.35.00 lakhs on 28'OB'2020 and defendants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors and executed necessary.: lor1*.={,9gvr"no in favour of applicant bank. The oerenoanisi,,i%. r tp:i+ changed the name of defendant no.1 as ' :':" !r= defendant.no.5 and " t S iff"'ftf"d^the, renewat oF outsranding tiabitity on

¶17

¶18

(oA.No.217 /2024)

¶19

31,.047.2023. Defendants no.2 to 4 stood as guarantors vide retter of arrangement dated 31,07.2023. To secure due repayment of loan, defendant no.4 deposited the tiile deed bearing Regd Sale deed no'623/1988 dated 11.05.1988 and further the defendants 3 & 4 executed Memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds no.1809/2023 dated 31.07.2023 in respect of oA schedure properties. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued regar notice dated 16.05,2024.Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶20

Counsel for defendants No.1,2 and 5 filed vakalath but failed to file Written statement. Defendants 3 & 4 called absent and set exparte on 14.tt.2024.

¶21

Mr. S. Pratik yadav, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.L to A.14.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

The is whether the Applicant Bank is OA against the Defendants as

¶24

ilPR zlffi

¶25

(oA.No.217 12024)

¶26

Defendants 3 & 4 remained exparte. Counsel for defendants No.1,2,5 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.14. 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.

¶27

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.3o,77,tg6/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs seventy Seven Thousand one hundred and Eighty six only) with interest @ f +.75o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶28

The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶29

10' The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person an+,."n$ p ,{f ypperties F '!,.! of defendants No. 2 to 4 and properties of defendants . ..*to

¶30

debt due. I 5 ilPn 2025 r'. t 4 . r-t ..

¶31

(oA.No.217 /2024]'

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^{the costs of the OA.}

¶33

L2. The Applicant shall file a^cost memo within two weeks from the^date of receipt of order.

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate^accordingly.

¶35

t4. Communicate a copy of^{the order to the parties concerned'}

¶36

(Dictated to the^p.A., transcribed by her,^{corrected, signedand pronouncedby mein the opencourt on} this the 15th day of APril,²⁰²⁵⁾

¶37

sdl - (G. GOPICHAND)

¶38

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

150PR2&5 *
?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sai Honda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Sai Honda

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kalepu Shivaji Prasad

Idbi Bank versus Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Boinpally Venkatesh

State Bank of India versus Namo Balaji Food Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Alamelu Manga International Bakers Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. M.K.Foods