Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Industries

DRT17 Apr 2025OA/310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by the State Bank of India against the Defendants. The claim for the principal amount of Rs. 1,06,36,865/-, interest, and costs was allowed based on the documents submitted by the Applicant Bank. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,06,36,865/- with interest. Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE 17rH DAy oF APRIL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.31O ot ZOZ4

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed tr-11: recovery Bra nch_I, 2"" iloor, TSRTC Bus terminal complex (commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad, TS. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Raja Rajeswari Industries, Represented by its proprietor Sri.V. Srinivasa Rao, major, male, Plot no.27la, phase IV, Pashamylaram, Isnapur,

¶9

Sangareddy district - SO2 307.

¶10

Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, s/o V. Venkatayya,

¶11

major, male, R/o 4-40_lg7/2/A, Pragathi nagar, jagadgirigutta,^' Hyderabad - 5OO 037.

¶12

Sri Bevara Balaji, s/o,La!e.8. 6#; Rao, major, i,ll t< i?1:1.R{:^o 12.-?z/e,rcsg,Asbestos'l colony, Jagadgiri gutta, Hyderabad_ 37.

¶13

Smt Bevara Bharathamma, y/o fulg B. Kurma Rao, femate, R/ o 4- 42-82/4, 1 039,Asbestos colony, Jagadgiri gutta, Hyderabad_ 37.

¶14

17 Ar1|xrj
Defendants

¶15

(oA. No.310/202a)

¶16

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶17

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶18

Sri B. Sreenivas Reddy

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,06,36,g65/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty Six thousand Eight hunclred and Sixty five only) with interest @ 18.650lo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 firm along with Sri B. Kurma Rao who was father of defendant no.3 and husband of defendant no.4 availed cash credit of Rs.95.00 lakhs on 05.01.2021. Defendant no.2 and Sri B. Kurma Rao stood as guarantors for due repayment and executed necessary documents, To secure due repayment of loan amount, Sri B. Kurma Rao deposited the tire deeds bearing Reg. sare deed no.344 /2014 dated 22.0L.2014 and create{--eg.uitable mortgage, of schedule property,

¶22

behind his legalt^,h?iirs/ defendants,3 fu 4. After availing the loan it the terms of sanction,

¶23

(oA.No.310/2024)

¶24

hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 05.L2.2O23 and issued legal notice dated 08.07.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding, Hence this OA.

¶25

counser for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire written statement,

¶26

sri R. Loganathan, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

prayed for?

¶31

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has establ g&q. made In the OA against the

¶32

Defendants an L" tiffinnr nk is entitled to recover the

¶33

claim made in ool"f nAtif u26?ji nter€st a nd costs.

¶34

B. In the result, with costs, as under:

¶35

(oA.No.310/2024)

¶36

The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,O5,36,865/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty Six thousand Eight hundred and Sixty

¶37

five only) with interest @ 18.650lo p.a from date of application

¶38

till the date of realization.

¶39

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due;

¶40

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.I firm towards rearization of the debt due. However the Applicant bank is entiued to proceed only to the extent of estate devolved upon defendants no.3 & 4 as legal heirs of deceased late B. Kurma Rao.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

of receipt of order.

¶44

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

iil$i|!i}?irt# bv+er, corrected, sisned and pronounced bv me in the open court on

¶47

sd/-
'.-
(G. GOP|CHAND)
0PR 20ff :fT'H PRESIDING OFFICER
.*f.#.f.r"^,
4

State Bank of India v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Industries

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.