Allowed

State Bank of India v. Muneeswara Traders

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/341/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a Bank for recovery of a loan. The court held respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount, future interest, and costs, noting defendants' absence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.80,68,315/- plus future interest at 13.40% p.a., costs, and application against hypothecated/personal properties for realization.

State Bank of India versus Muneeswara Traders — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY,TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH oo SEPTEMBER, 2o2s PRESENT: ,n. rarro-^ |<o'o"

¶2

o*urr;irl%.irrr...."fl^{., L. LB.( Hons.} ), M. A.

¶3

ORIGTNAL APPLICATION No: 341 oF 2025

$5g5ffi,*r,lffi

..... Applicant

Versus

t. I.. S.' Muneeswara Traders lepresented^{ov ii. pi"pii"t"l} Regd. Office D. No.11_ 183/2_ 10 Utdpet, Lakshminagar Colony Patamaner, Chittoor Djst Andhra^pradesh - S 17408.

¶8

lvlr. K.Chendil Kumar@ Senthit Kumar S/o. K.Adinarayana, Aged Major, Occ: Business.

¶9

Mrs. S.Sadwik, D/o. K.Chendil Kumar @ Senthil Kumar, Aged Major, Occ: Business.

¶10

Sri K.Surya, S/o. K.Chendil Kumar @ Senthil Kumar, Aged Major, Occ: Business.

¶11

All 2,3,4 are R/o.D.No.11-183/2-10, Otdpet Lakshminagar Colony, palamaner Chittoor Dist, Andhra^pradesh - St74O8.

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

: l4ls. M.Venkat Divakar

Defendants

oA.No.341/2025

:: ORDER^::

L. rhe^{Appricant Bank fired the present oA fo;:: '::;"?."L"*} sum^{of Rs'80'68'31s/-a-s-^oJef;;;;;,"',} and^severailv A/c.No'42ss877^{1::t^::T.::",:.} -,,^'."".', rests^{and penar} with^{future interest €iru rJ'"} application^{till the date of}

¶20

[," ",

¶21

interest^{@2olop.a from} "" I'";;^'* i"r.rn for sale^of realization^{alonq with cost} hYPothecated^assets'

¶22

Summons hence,^{deemed sent to to D1 be to served' 4 returned They were withendorsement set ex-parte refusedon} 1a.o7.2025^{as called absent and no representation'}

¶23

The Applicant^{Bank examinedP V S Srinivas' Legal Manager' as} AW-1 and^{marked 09 documentsthrough him as Ex A l to Ex'} A.09.

¶24

Applicant^{right of arguments is forfeitedvide docket order} dated 24^{09.2025 for no representationPerusedthe material} placed on record.

¶25

The^point that^{arises for considerationis:-}

¶26

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein theOA against} the Defendants^{and OA hypothecated} asset?

¶27

As stated supra,^{the Defendants remained ex-parte The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupled with the recitalsin the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to^{A.09 markedon behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the^{claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold^{that the Defendantsare jointlyand severally liable} to Day the OA claimJo^{the Applicant Bank with future interest} ,/,4,/lIw\ -, ^(and costs. , ,,^ <.loi'^' l--/

¶28

¶29

oA.NO.341/202s

¶30

, 7. In the result, the present Original Application No.34112025 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.80,68,315/- towards Loan A/c. No. 4255877L895; with future interest @13.40olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th Day of September, 2025).

¶38

Ow*o (RAil(ESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Muneeswara Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Muneeswara 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

Similar cases

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. B Rajaiah

Kothamidde Venkataramana versus Hdfc Bank

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

Bank of India versus M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Akshay Singh