Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Siri Mobiles and Electronics

DRT24 Apr 2025OA/250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against defendants for recovery of principal and interest amounts from cash credit, term loan, and GECL facilities after finding the claim substantiated by documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 32,41,308/- (gross) less Rs. 1.45 lakhs payment under OTS, along with future interest and costs.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24rH DAy OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2SO ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Retail Assets & Small Medium Enterprises, City Credit Centre, (RASMECCC) JPN Road, Warangal, Warangal dist, Rep by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1"1/s. Siri Mobiles & Electronics, Represented by its proprietrix SmtBhavanaNallapu, 2nd defenda nt herein H.No.B-12-40, JPN road,

¶9

Warangal, Warangal dist - 506 002.

¶10

Mrs. BhavanaNallapu, W/o Sri NallapuRambabu, Aged about 33 years, female, Occ; business and proprietrixfof Defendant no.1 H.No. B-12-40, JPN road, Warangal, Warangal dist - 506

¶11

And H.No.33-6-75lA, Ramgopalpura ? E t;r,p tttx Hanumakonda - 506 001. And

¶12

H.No. 10-3-76, second floor, Near Govindrajulagutta, Girmajipet, Warangal - 506 002. Defenda nts

¶13

(oA. No.250/2024)

¶14

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶15

Sri G. PrabhakarSarma Sri G. KalyanChakravarthy

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.32,41,3O8/-^{(RupeesThirty Two} Lakhs Forty One Thousand Three hundred and^{Eight only) i.e.,}

¶18

A) a sum of Rs.28,20,364/- in respect of cash credit^{account with} interest @ 12.75o/o^p.a with monthly^{rests from date of application} till the date of realization;

¶19

B) a sum of 45,902/- under term^{loan with interest} @^{12.40o/o g.a} with monthly rests from date of application till^{the date of} rea lization ;

¶20

C) a sum of 1,98,157/- under GECL^{loan with interest} @^{9.25% p.a} with monthly rests from date of application till^{the date of} realization;

¶21

D) a sum of t,76,BB5l- under GECL^{(Ext) with interest} @^9.25%p.a with monthly rests from date of application till^{the date of} realization;

¶22

and hypothecated movables as mentionedⁱⁿ the tSA. r-vJ

¶23

¶24

(OA.No.2s0l2024)

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 as proprietor availed a sum of Rs.15.OO lakhs and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 15.O2.2017. The defendants also availed term loan of Rs.7 lakhs on L4.0l.ZOl9 and subsequently the cash credit was enhanced from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 15.10.2019. In Covid19 pandemic, the defendants also availed GECL of Rs.5.B3 lakhs on 04.06.2020. 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 and issued legal notice dated 28.12.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Sri G. KalyanChakravarthy filed vakalath on behalf of defendants but not filed WS.

¶27

4, Sri R. Loganathan, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.25. It is submitted that the defendants a sum of

¶28

Rs.1.45 lakhs under OTS.

¶29

Heard Applicant Bank. 7- 4 t?nM t,r

¶30

...,.,

¶31

(oA.No.2s0l2024)

¶32

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶33

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶34

Defendants counser faired to fire ws. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A,25. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶35

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.32,41,g}a/_ (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Forty One Thousand Three hundred and Eight only) LESS A SUM OF RS.1.45 LAKHS PAID BY DEFENDANTS UNDER oTs.

¶36

a) a sum of Rs.28,20,3 64/- in respect of cash credit account with interest @ r2.750/o p.a from date of application tiil the date of realization;

¶37

P02/-^{,n0", term loan with interest @ L2.4Oo/op.a} f,.";ie,;,6\Nica tion till the date of realization; ) 4^,rr? ?fVS j i ,..i'^./i -f^51": li _u #/

¶38

(oA.No.250 /2024)

¶39

c) a sum of 1,98,157/- under GECL loan with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶40

d) a sum of 1,76,885/- under GECL (Ext) with interest @ 9.25o/o p,a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2025)

¶48

sd/ - (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

rig,._
',"'/
I

¶50

TRUE COPII/ 0".a.t,1k ndnsixrr D!?.f-,,_ ii)'; ',t-^{4 4 1n}

State Bank of India v. M/S. Siri Mobiles and Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Siri Mobiles and Electronics

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Unnati Seeds

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sri. Haligi Ramesh

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Mahakali Motors

State Bank of India versus Salla Ram Reddy

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Genex Tubing Solutions

State Bank of India versus Kannuri Kanaka Durga Prasad