Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Bandari Agency

DRT17 Apr 2025OA/309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed an Officer's Application filed by State Bank of India against three respondents for recovery of loan dues totaling Rs. 77,55,005/-, interest, and costs, directing the issuance of a recovery certificate and procession against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of joint and several liability for Rs. 77,55,005/-, interest, costs, and authorization to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bandari Agency — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.3O9 ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, ARMB (SARB-II), Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC X roads, Chlkkadpally, Hyderabad, TS. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Bandari Agency,

¶9

Represented by its proprietor

¶10

Mr. Bandari Sanjeev Rao,

¶11

H. No. 1-3-464 / t, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabid _ 5OO 080.

¶12

Sri Bandari Sanjeev Rao, s/o Sailoo, aged 6g years,

¶13

occ: business,

¶14

H. No. 1-3-46411, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabid _ 500 OBo.

¶15

Also at:

¶16

Municipal No.6-6-35/4, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad, Telangana- 5OO OgO.

¶17

Also at:

¶18

H.no.6-6-37 /3, Devinagar colony, Bansilalpet, Bhoiguda, becunde#OaO_

¶19

Smt Annapurna, w/o Bandari Sanjeev Rao,

¶20

aged 59 years, occ: housemaker, R/o H. No.6-6 -34/ 4/ t, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad, TS - 5OO OBO.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

(oA.No.309/2024)

¶23

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant

¶24

For the Defendants

¶25

Sri M. Venkat Divakar

¶26

Sri A. Alavender Goud

¶27

ORDER

¶28

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.77,55,0O5/_ (Rupees Seventy Seven Lakhs Fifty Five thousand and five only) a sum of Rs'73,30,440l- under roan account No.52026126235 with further interest @ 9% p.a and a sum of Rs.4,24,565/_ under loan account no.39399691380 with further interest @ 10.25olo p.a with monthly rests and penal interest @ 2o/o p.a from 04.07.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶29

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendants 1 and 2 avaired cash credit roan of Rs.14.00 rakhs and hypothecated stocks and receivabres in favour of Appricant bank. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the said roan and executed guarantee agreement dated 07.07.200g. Defendant no.2 mortgaged the schedule property deposited the tiue deeds document no.LL24/2008 ndant no.2 availed enhanced . !,}' i, cash credit limit to'Rs to Rs.30.00 lakhs and executed supptementa? JgrffirlUg or cum hypothecation dated

¶30

(oA.No.309/202a)

¶31

18.03.2013. on 04.09.2015, the cash credit rimit was enhanced to Rs'39'00 rakhs and the defendant no.2 extended the enhancement of overdraft limit to Rs.45.00 lakhs and subsequenfly to Rs.49,50,000/_ The defendant no.2 again availed GECL term loan of Rss.9,10,000/_ totaling to Rs.54,10,000/-. Later the GECL loan was enhanced to Rs.3,47,000/-. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 30.07.2023 and issued demand notice dated 13.06.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶32

3' counser for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire written statement.

¶33

Sri J. Rama Rao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.34.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is OA against the Defendants as

¶36

1t
{PR 2tr5

¶37

(oA.No.309 /20241

¶38

Counsel for defendants 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.34. 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.

¶39

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.77,55,OOSl- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lakhs Fifty Five thousand and five only) a sum of Rs.73,30,440/- under loan account No.52026L26235 with further interest @ 9% p.a and a sum of Rs.4,24,565/- under loan account no.39399691380 with further interest @ L0.25o/o p.a from 04.07.2024 till the date of realization.

¶40

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

¶41

,n" Adffittb^#'*m"{so . . , .'. '. .IIr; Tirr" " ?,,"i.. e,'1.... entiiled to proceed asainst the person ..tl,f Fil-., . and pr6perties!$ deferidilrtt No.2 and 3 and properties of defendant

¶42

(oA. No.309/2024)

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery certiflcate accordingly.

¶46

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribe this the 17th day of Aprit, rorrro o, her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶48

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

1,,.:t 1l {Ipn7fa
%j#

¶50

trSW
DRI_I, H)rllri.-,! iari.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Bandari Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Bandari Agency

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S.. Mokshit Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Pushpak Energy Industry

Bank of India versus M/S. Chandramouli Wines

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Tirumala Cloth Stores

T Narayana Rao versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Gopagoni Sridhar Transport Co.