Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mahendra Enterprises

DRT14 May 2025OA/391/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal order, the Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against corporate and individual defendants. The court held that the bank established its claim through documentary evidence and ordered joint and several liability to pay the outstanding principal sums along with specified future interest rates and costs.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay total sum of Rs. 89,43,458.80 with future interest; authority to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH^{DAY OF MAY,2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.391 ot 2024

¶5

Between :

¶6

State bank of India, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity centre, Koti/ Hyderabad, Telangana^state-g5. Represented by its Chief^Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Mahendra EnterPrises, Represented by its^Proprietor Mr. Surya DevaraSadanandam, H.No.3-364, main road,^Parkal Village, Warangal dist,^{TS -506 164'}

¶10

Mr. SuryadevaraSadanandam, s/o S. Ramanaiah, aged^{about 61 years,} occ: business, male, H.No.3-364, main road,^Parkal Village, Warangal dist,^{TS -506 164.}

¶11

Sri KondleRamanaiah, s/o Laxmi Narayana,^{aged major,} occ: business, male,^{R/o H.No'3616,} main road Parkal,^Warangaldist Telangana - 506 164. Defendants Counsel for the^P, For the Applicant F'_m* tTaranglniPisipati For the Defendan B.S, Reddy B^{1I flAr2025} rL// *n// %*C

¶12

(OA.No.391 of 2024)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.89,43,458.80ps (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight and paise Eighty only) i.e.,

¶15

a) A sum of Rs.80,07,978/- under loan Account no.52186072839 with interest @ 16.250lo p.a(inclusive of 2olo^penal interest) with monthly rests from 08.L0.2024 till the date of realization;

¶16

b) A sum of Rs.3,10,523/- under loan account no.39372898193 with interest @ 11.25olo^{p.a (inclusive} of 2olo^penal interest)^with monthly rests from 08.10.2024 till the date of realization;

¶17

c) A sum of Rs.6,24,9571- under loan account No.40610154303 with interest @ 11.25olo^{p.a (inclusive} of 2o/o^penal interest) with monthly rests from 08.10.2024 till the date of realization; and in default for sale of hypothecated movables^{and mortgaged} properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the^{ApplicantBankstates} that defendant no.1 is the borrower represented by its^defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 stood as^guarantor availed a loan^of Rs.6,90,000/arrangement dated 06.02.2012. The n a n r a cittfijh."' r".ur"'ffi pothecation of stocks, book debts, r

¶19

//'7Y r-,

¶20

current listets and michinery fully described in schedule A to E^{1t tt/lY ?tt25}

¶21

(OA.No.391 of 2024)

¶22

OA as primary security and collateral security of mortgaged schedule B property to OA. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation, guarantee agreement in favour of Applicant bank. Subsequently the limit was enhanced to Rs.10.00 lakhs and^{later to} Rs.15.00 lakhs on 07.09.2012. Further the enhanced limit of Rs.15 lakhs was enhanced to rs.48 lakhs and executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 20.12.20t3.^{Further the} defendant no.2 availed enhanced limit from^Rs.48 lakhs to^Rs.60 lakhs and subsequently to rs.70 lakhs on 18.07.2019.^The defendants also availed GECL loan of rs.14 lakhs on 03.06.2020. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply^the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the^account as NPA on 28.02.2024 and recall notice^{was issued} on^t9.10.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did^not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file^Written statement.

¶24

Sri R. Loganathan, Manager of the Applicant^{Bank examined himself} as AW.1 and exhib nt documents, which are marked as

¶25

Heard the

¶26

(OA.No.391 of 2024)

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶28

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.37. 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 entiued to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶29

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.89,43,458.8ops (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight and paise Eighty only) i,e.,

¶30

a) A sum of Rs.80,07,978/- under loan Account no.52186072839 with interest @ 14.25o/o p.a from 08.10.2024 till the date of realization;

¶31

b) A sum of Rs.3,10,523l- under loan account no,39372898193 with interest @ 3li from 08.10.2024 till the date of

¶32

(OA.No.391 of 2024)

¶33

c) A sum of Rs.6,24,957/- under loan account No.40610154303 with interest @ 9.25olo p.a from 08.10.2024 till the date of realization;

¶34

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

¶35

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and^properties of^defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of^{the OA.}

¶37

The Applicant shall file a cost memo^within two^{weeks from the date} of receipt of order.

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to^{the parties concerned.}

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by^{mein the opencourt on} this the 14th day of May, 2025)

¶41

sdl_
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

DRT.I, HY!)ERABAD.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mahendra Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mahendra Enterprises

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Subhiksha Enterprises

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammed Masiuddin

State Bank of India versus Sri. Abothu Satya Prasad Babu

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Chaitany Spoorthi Offset

Mr Nerangal Nagaraj versus Punjab National Bank

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, versus M/S.. Suraksha Engineering Works