Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Venkateshwara Rice Traders

DRT8 Sept 2025OA/324/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 1,98,16,353/- with interest against the defendant firm and partners, holding the documents sufficiently established the liability.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are ordered to pay Rs. 1,98,16,353/- with interest; a Recovery Certificate is issued; cost awarded to the applicant.

State Bank of India versus Sri Venkateshwara Rice Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 8rH DAy oF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESTDING oFFICER OA.No.324 of 2023

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of India, Asset R_ecovery Management Branch, (SARB-2), 1-8-563/1, 1sL ftoor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC "X" Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Sri Venkateswara Rice Traders, A partnership firm, Represented by its partner Mr. Durgam Ramesh, , Having its place of business At 3-1 1-26, Mansurabad,

¶8

L. B. Nagar, Saroornagar,

¶9

Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶10

Sri Durgam Ramesh, S/o De. Venkatadri, aged 41 years, business, R/o 3-L|-2LZ/2, ptot no.Il,

¶11

Road no.4, Sri Shankar colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad _ SOO'Olq.

¶12

Smt Ratnam Swaroopa, W/o Durgam Ramesh, aged About 35 years, business, R/o 3-11-2t7/2, ptot no.tL,

¶13

Road no.4, Sri Shankar

¶14

L.B. Nagar, Hyderaba

¶15

Defendants
00stPa6
W,.*9

¶16

(oA.No32a/2023)

¶17

Counsel for the parties:

¶18

For the Applicant Defendant

¶19

Sri N. Meher prasad

¶20

Sri M. G. Ramesh Anand

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a totar sum of Rs.r,9g,16,353/- (Rupees one crore Ninety Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Three only) i.e.,

¶23

a) A sum of Rs.1,g6,07,788/_ with interest @ L4.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from 16.L1,.2023 till the date of realization;

¶24

b) A sum of Rs,12,08,565/_ with interest @ 7.40o/o p.a with monthly rests from 16.11.2023 till the date of realization;

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.r. is a partnership firm and defendants no'2 & 3 are its partners avaired demand cash credit of Rs.115 Lakhs from 2g'06'2018 against the hypothecation of stocks and receivabres of defendant no'1' Defendant no.2 deposited the tire deeds of the schedule property by way of mortgage in favour of Applicant bank. Defendant no.1 availed cash credit of Rs.105 lakhs, working capital term loan oF Rs.11 la nd GECL of Rs.23.00 lakhs and executed necessary by the Applicant bank that the Defendant ,td!* and failed to keep up the

¶26

(oA. No.32412023)

¶27

repayment schedule, as such the account was classified aS NpA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued notice dated 77.10.2023, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The iotal claim oF Applicant against defendants is of Rs.1,98,16,353/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Three only) with further interest @ 14.75olo p.a & @7.40o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶28

The Defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It is contended that no documents were fired by defendants and that the defendants did not create equitable mortgage in favour of Applicant bank. It is further contended that the Applicant bank classified the account as NpA without following the guidelines of RBI and charged the interest exorbitanily which is against the adhered norms. Hence prayed for dismissar of oA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 but not filed any documents.

¶29

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Heard the

¶31

(OA. No.324l202 3 )

¶32

q Now, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA aga inst the defendants ?

¶33

ii) To what relief ?

¶34

Point No.i)t

¶35

Sri J. Rama Rao, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.30 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the deFendants.

¶36

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants, Even though defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1, he has not filed any documents, hence his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant no.2 having taken the plea they made some payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the ble to pay the OA claim. Considering all the opinion that the defense taken by the

¶37

efendarlts is not tenf,dlt Hence the applicant bank is entitled to ;J^{u8-sfP2ffi *}

'W.-e.P'

(oA. No.324l2023)

claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim

¶42

deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶43

Point No.ii)

¶44

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶45

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,98,16,95:,/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Three only) i.e.,

¶46

a) A sum of Rs.1,86,07,788/- with interest @ t4.75o/o p.a from 16.t|.2023 till the date of realization;

¶47

b) A sum of Rs.12,08,565/- with interest @ 7.40o/o p.a from L6.LL.2023 till the date of realization;

¶48

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

¶49

The Applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

titled to the costs oF the OA. 4r' *

¶51

(oA.No.324 /2023)

¶52

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

¶53

of receipt of order.

¶54

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶55

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

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

sd/ -

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESID!NG OFFICER

rT*d'4"y
v [. a{'t^
Aeat.
1tr87,1,

State Bank of India v. Sri Venkateshwara Rice Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Venkateshwara Rice Traders

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

Erumall Arlappa versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Ms Vishal Saree Center versus Dcb Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav

Ms Sr Agro Export India Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ahmed Rickshaw and Cycle Parts

Sri Sai Poultry versus Indian Overseas Bank