The DRT allowed the bank's application to recover the outstanding loan amount after accepting the bank's evidence and accounting for the proceeds from the sale of mortgaged properties.
Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay the outstanding principal sum, interest, and future interest, net of amounts recovered by auction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THrS THE 6rH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
OA.No.27 ot 2023
Between:
State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095.
Represented by its Chief Manager
Applicant
VERSUS
And
Road no.12, 8-2-684/4/8, Beside Audi Showroom, Anand, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.
,i o6ilAyzozs ;
'W"'-rW
(OA.No.27l2023)
Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant : Sri C. Prabhakar Defendants No. 1 to 6 :Sri PSN Ravindra
ORDER
Sixty six I thirty only)i.e.,
Z6<br>fF
*
0 6 tul'' ,i:;
(oA. No.27l2023)
a) A sum of Rs.5,50,22,757/under loan accou nt
N0.40521446647with further interest @ 14.15olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;
b) A sum of Rs.10,29,014/- under loan account No.40526423498 with further interest @ 14.15olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;
And in default for sale of hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties as mentioned in schedules.'I to VIII,, to OA.
As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a private limited company / principal borrower and defendants no.2 to 6 are mortgagors as weil as guarantors availed cash credit loan of rs.5.05 crore on 30.11.2018. defendant no.1 company created primary charge by way of hypothecation of all movable assets more fully described in the schedule I to oA. To secure due repayment of cash credit roan of Rs.5.05 cores, defendant no.5 created equitable mortgage on 30.11.2018 and deposited sale deed no.9/91 in respect of OA schedule Property -II to oA. Defendant no.6 created equitabre mortsas.el%@ rty - III and deposited the sale deed no.zszli$. ,ffi created equitable mortgage by way of ri 2016 in respect of OA schedule
(oA.No.27/2023)
property-IV to oA. Defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage by deposit of sale deed no.5752/ 1985 in respect of schedule property-V to oA. Defendant no.2 created equitabre mortgage by deposit of sale deed no.1015/1998 in respect of schedule property-Vl to oA. Defendant no.3 created equitable mortgage by deposit of sale deed no.141t/20L4 in respect of schedule property-Vll to oA. Defendant no.4 executed GpA in favour of defendant no.2 for execution of documents and also for creation of mortgage vide GpA No.cc/363/Lg dated 01.02.20t9. Defendant no.2 being GpA holder of defendant no.4 created equitable mortgage and deposited sale deed no.27857/20L6 in respect of schedule property- VIII to oA. The Applicant renewed the loan facilities vide letter of arrangement dated 22.10.202t as detailed below:
| S.No. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | WCTL | 500.00 |
| 2. | GECL | 100.00 |
| 3. | FITL | 60.00 |
| Total | 660.00 |
2' It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant no.1 has not regularized
the accou plicant bank issued legal notice dated 02.01. d .tsdid not come forward to repay the ,,* cla im o* $pplicant against defendants is of
(oA.No.27l2023)
Rs.6,66,O6,O3O/- (Rupees Six Crores Sixty six lakhs Six thousand and thirty only) with future interest @ 14.15olo p.a @ 17.3Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date oF realization. Hence the OA.
i) Bank has proved its claim as made in o ii *nt'8"$fA1 ,nr5
(oA.No.27l2023)
Point No.i):
1oA.No.27l2023)
claim the OA amount from defendants No.1 to 6. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.
Point No.ii)
The Defendants No.1 to 6are joinily and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.6,66,06,030/- (Rupees Six Crores Sixty six lakhs Six thousand and thirty only) LESS A SUM OF RS.4,57,35,O0O/_ AND A SUM OF RS.2,10,99,750/- recovered by sale of mortgaged properties
through Auction.
m ova bles ; mentionearf n the u IeNo.Ito OA towards realization : l} E uavr*t
of the de
(oA.No.27l2023)
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6'h day of May, 2025)
sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
ffi<br>J oEulyrtrzs :
^j
E,,%+.
{$:t;5ffi
PRESIDING OFFICER
ffiw
^#I',fs'ffin
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank's claim against the defendants is established and allowed.
Whether the sale of hypothecated properties reduces the decretal amount.
Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining balance with interest.
State Bank of India
M/s. Maxxtouchlmppex India Pvt Ltd
Smt Peta Lakshmi Murthy
Sri P.V. Ramana Murthy
Sri Peta Devari Sai Krishna
Sri Harish Kumar Harwani
Gummad GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
