Dismissed

Standard Chartered Bank v. Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

DRT26 Aug 2025OA/228/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI matter, Standard Chartered Bank sought recovery of a defaulted business loan against a company and its directors. The defendants denied the debt in a written statement. The tribunal dismissed the application because the bank failed to adduce evidence due to inaction after multiple adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application No. 22B/2024 is dismissed without costs.

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

R.AMESHWAR^KOTHE Presiding^Officer Govt. of^lndia , =.r.Yit ;'6"^{;ttt' iill Ei, o. -,} Abids, HYd^{erabad-500001 '}

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, U.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), tv1 .A. PRESIDING OFFICEtl

¶5

Original Application No: 228 OF 2024

¶6

M/s. Standard Chartered Bank., 6-3-1090, TSR Tower Rajbhavan Road Somajiguda, Khairatabad Mandal Hyderabad - 500082. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

¶7

.....Applica nt

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sai Tirumala Papers Private Limited., Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Tammineedi Anjani Kumar Flat No.G2, H.No.8-3-224 / B / 54 Plot No.G12, Sai Krishna Swarna Residency Maduranagar, Hyderabad - 500038.

¶10

Mr. Tammineedi Anjani Kumar S/o. Sri Perineedu Tammineedi Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Director Sai Tirumala Papers Private Limited R/o. MIG H.No.B14, BHEL, Serilingampalty Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032.

¶11

Mr. Ramakrishna Prasad Manne

¶12

S/o. Sri Venkata Narasaiah, Aged about 67 Years Occ: Director of Sai Tirumala Papers Private Limited H. No.B-2-269 I 314/ F, Mayfair Apartnrents Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500039.

¶13

.. .. . .lJCf (indunts

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.Sagar & Sagar Law Offices Defendants : Ex-parte,lnlia* ru -lS'<sup>-

¶15

OA.No.228l2024

¶16

:: ORDER ::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.50,67,244l- towards Loan A/c.Nos.51827344 & 52414477 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @17olo^p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶18

The averments of the applicant bank as per the OA, in brief, are that defendant No.1 is a company represented by its director's defendant Nos.2 & 3, availed business loan facilities. After availing loan facility, the applicant bank informed the defendants that their loan was classified as defaulted account. The defendant committed default despite several demands and failed to regularize the account in spite of legal notice dated 22.06.2022. The outstanding dues recoverable from the defendants work out to Rs.50,67,244/-. As the defendants failed to clear the dues, the present OA is filed.

¶19

Summon served on D1 and 2 and was set ex-parte on 04.09.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

3'd Defendant filed written statement. At the outset, defendants denied all the OA averments and the allegations in the present OA. Defendants availed business loan facilities to meet their working capital requirements. The company had paid its instalments and the interest due regularly. The applicant bank issued a full and final settlement letter on 08.12.2023 and all the cheques were cleared. There is no cause of action arose on the dates as mentioned in the OA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

A perusal of docket proceedings would reveal that the case had been posted for applicant bank's evidence -on (1)10.01.2025, 1ftx6,,'

¶22

oA.No.228/2024

¶23

(2)03.03.2025, (3)02.04.2025, (4)t6.06.2025 and finally on (5)09,07.2025. Despite these many adjournments and costs, the applicant bank did not bother to adduce evidence.^As the^applicant bank failed to evince any interest in^pursuing the case, the^{right of} evidence was fofeited on 09.07.2025 and matter was^postedfor orders.

¶24

Defendant No.3 right of adducing evidence was forfeited^though posted as a last chance vide docket order dated 22.07.2025 and right to arguments was also forfeited on 21.08.2025.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank proved its claim made in the OA against the Defendants?

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants 1 & 2 remained ex-parte and no representation for 3'd defendant after filing written statement and right to evidence was forfeited, The right of adducing evidence of applicant was forfeited. The applicant bank failed to substantiate its claim by leading evidence and mark the documents in-spite of several adjournments and costs. Under such circumstances, I hold that the claim of the applicant bank remained un-substantiated and not proved.

¶28

Accordingly, OA is liable to be dismissed, without costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.22B/2024 fails and is hereby dismissed without costs.

¶30

B. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

M'u*

¶32

OA.No.22812024

¶33

Learncd Registrar is directed to communicate a copy of this order to thc Head of the applicant bank, both by e-mail as well as reg istered post.

¶34

(Dictated to the stcno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this tho 26th day of August, 2025).

¶35

K.r,,o ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

RAMESHWAR^KOTHE Presiding Officer Govt. of lndia Mlnistry ol^Finance DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL-2 Abids, HYderabad-500⁰⁰¹ '

Standard Chartered Bank v. Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Standard Chartered Bank v. Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited

Smt Dakshiraju Nagamni versus State Bank of India