Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Cubatic Arcade Private Limited

DRT20 Aug 2025OA/335/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the originallapplication filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan account classified as NPA. The court found the defendants liable based on unchallenged documentary evidence and the defendants' failure to adduce evidence despite adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.11.14 Crores as loan amounts with interest and to allow proceeding against mortgaged property and other assets for recovery.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Cubatic Arcade Private… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.335 of 2O2Z

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 1't' floor, TSRTC Bus Slation, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Cubatic Arcade private Limited. Represented by its Director,2nd floor, Dwaraka Heights, plot no.17, lubilee enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 061.

¶9

Also at:

¶10

1tt foor, Renuka venkateswara Nilayam,^plot no. 6L7, road no.34, Ayyappa society, Madhapur, Hyderabad - S0O 081.

¶11

Mr. M. Laxminarayana Rao, s/o Mutanchetty Durga prasad, R/o 3Lh, flat no.703, lanco hills, Manikonda, puppa laguda, Rangareddy district_SOO beg.

¶12

Sri Tiparthi Suri Babu, s/o Suryanarayana Tiparthi, 1 3-6- 1", sivalayam street, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District_533 255.

¶13

2 0 Al.,0 2025

¶14

Smt Kesana Sai Deepthi,

¶15

(OA.No.335 of 2022 )

¶16

w/o Phani Kumar Gudidevuni, flat no.3O2, Sai Kalyan Residency, bandari layout, Near NRI college,' Nizampet, euthbullapur mandal, Hyderabad - 5OO 090. K.V. Ranga Reddy district.

¶17

Sri Gurappa H.G. premkumar, S/o Gurappa Hirivate, #.,14, Channamma, l.'t cross, I^-' Main, San jivrni nagar, Hegganahalli, Bangalore north, Bangalore viswaneedam Karnataka - 560 09i.

¶18

Hirivate Veerappa Gowde Gurappa, Kesagoda village, Belur Taluk, Hasan District, Ka rnata ka Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant For the Defendant No.5 Defendants 1 to 4 and 6

¶20

Sri M.V. Janaki Ram Ms. P. Priya Ex pa rte

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶23

recovery of a total sum of Rs.11,14,95,062/- (Rupees Eleven

¶24

Crores Fourteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Sixty two

¶25

only) ie.,

¶26

46 '-"'iffir ''% 58, 62,600/- under Asset backed loan account with
k rurtt$r inte
10.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of
'r -lr
date of realization;

¶27

(OA.No.335 of 2022)

¶28

b) A sum of Rs,1,39,21 ,641/- under GECL loan account with further interest @ g'g00/o p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA till the date of realization;

¶29

c) A sum of Rs.1,17,10,g2L/- under FITL loan account with further interest @ 15.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶30

and in default for sale oF mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA,

¶31

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Company availed fund based working capitar finance of Rs.g.50 crores vide retter of arrangement dated 03'02'2019' Defendants no. 2 to 6 stood as guarantors for the said facirity' Defendant no.6 created equitabre mortgage on schedure mentioned property on 03.02.201g and deposited Registered will dated 11.01.2000. The defendants executed guarantee agreement and defendant no.2 executed a regd general power of attorney bearing no.172/iv/2017 dated 22.tI.2017. The defendant no.1 Company availed GECL (Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line) facility of Rs.1.32 Crores vide letter of arrangement dated 07.07.2020. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and s'utu1:-.u:..!9-*!:.:ment bv defendants no.2 to 6 on 08.07.2020.rn on passed by defendant no.1 company, the k san restructured credit facillties to a tune of .2027 and executed necessary documents. 3

¶32

(OA.No.335 of 2022)

¶33

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 crassified as NpA and issued regar notice dated 07.10.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, ancr the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.11,].4,g',062/_ (Rupees Eleven Crores Fourteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Sixty two only)with future interest @) 15.50o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶34

The Defendant No.5 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and mortgage of schedure property. It is submitted that the Appricant bank charged exorbitant charges as rate of interest. It is arso submitted that the Appricant bank viorated the stamp duty and requisite stamp duty was not paid on the loan documents. It is further submitted by the defendants that they were regular in repaying the loan amount and they denied the classification of account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines and contended ':.that th aintainable nor tenable. Hence prayed for d isrn

¶35

(oA.No.335 of 2022)

¶36

The Appricant Bank in support of its craim, fired evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Chittaranjan Sahoo, Chief Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 39 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.39. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their beharf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. In spite of repeated adjournments, the defendants faired to fire evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on tI.04.2025.

¶37

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶38

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶39

i) Whether the Appticant Bank has proved its claim as made in

¶40

OA against the defendants ) ii) To what retief ?

¶41

point No.i):

¶42

6' As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very crear that the defendants have avaired roan from the Appricant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defend rty mentioneO in the statement of account filed by Apla'6nnT Bnq!.'.qB defendants have not placed any material /ti,:' f,i" documents td show bonafides for establishing that the :.q"o,t^{B,.8BG,.?F$,.,} $ mortgaged in favour of Applicant bank. 'w,-,*s9 (kcil_ffl19

¶43

(OA.No.335 of 2022)

¶44

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counser for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their is ress than the amount mentioned in the oA under 'abirity such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.39 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶45

Point No.ii)

¶46

7 ' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is arowed with costs as under:

¶47

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs,11,14,95,062/_ (Rupees Eleven Crores Fourteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Sixty two only) ie.,

¶48

A) A sum of Rs.8,58,62,600/_ under Asset backed loan account with further interest @ 10.50% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶49

B) A sum of Rs.1,39,2 1,641/- under GECL loan account with further interest @ B.B0% p.a from date of filing of OA till the

¶50

date of

¶51

c) As rr.cr-nE6rzlf under FITL loan account with

¶52

p rnterest*@ 15. a from date of filing of OA till

¶53

8,",f.9.119g,,m I B4^ *o s-'l &ry'*W€vrnf^"t97,'

¶54

(OA.No.335 of 2022)

¶55

The Appilcant bank ts enflfled to proceed agalnst the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶56

9' The Applicant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 6 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶57

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

¶58

11' The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶59

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶61

(Dictated to the p A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of Aug, 2025)

¶62

sd/-

¶63

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

20tlj8m

¶65

TRUE COPY
n*,*M.r,,
^ar-t, HYrEi?..{gAr.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Cubatic Arcade Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Cubatic Arcade Private Limited

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

Shrusti Educational Academy versus Idbi Bank

State Bank of India versus Smt. Chittimelli Bharathi

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Malothu Mamatha

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Ragula Ramesh

Union Bank of India versus Sri Arella Mahesh

M S Lavanya Constructions versus Karur Vysya Bank