Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Srinivasa Binny Rice Mill

DRT20 Mar 2025OA/392/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad allowed an Originating Application filed by State Bank of India against a rice mill firm and its partners. The tribunal held that the bank established its claim for a total debt of Rs. 4.32 crores arising from cash credit, GECL, and SLC accounts, granting permission for realisation through mortgaged properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to pay the total sum of Rs. 4,32,11,324/- with interest, and allowing the bank to proceed against mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables for realisation.

State Bank of India versus Sri Srinivasa Binny Rice Mill — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 2OrHDAy OF MARCH, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.392 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch-II, (SARB-II), opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC Cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri SrinivasaBinny Rice Mill, A partnership firm, Represented by its partners the Defendants2&3herein, H. No.8-4011, Main road, Lingampet village &mandal, Kamareddy district - 503 124.

¶9

Mr. KatipallyDattaiah, S/o Sri KatipallyVasaraiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ:.business and pa rtner Of 1" defendant firm,

¶10

H. No. 10-B/1, Ailapur road, Lingampet village and mandal, Kamareddy district,

¶11

And

¶12

Flat no.401, B-block, Laxmi r4
Residency Apartment, &
Sircilla road, Kamareddy.
2 0 ilAR 206
3. Sri Katipa llyPashupathinath,
s/o Sri KatipallyDattaiah,
HYD.-s*ty
#iT'iq

¶13

(OA. No.392l2024)

¶14

aged about 37 years, occ: business and partner of defendant no.1 firm, H.No. 10-B/1, Ailapur road, Lingampet village and mandal, Kamareddy district,

¶15

And

¶16

Flat no.401, B-block, Laxmi Residency Apartment, Sircilla road, Kamareddy.

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Parties:

¶19

For the Applicant

¶20

For the Defendants

¶21

Sri G. PrabhakarSarma Expa rte

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4,32,11,324/-(Rupees Four Crores Thirty Two lakhs Ereven Thousand rhree hundred and twenty four only) i.e.,

¶24

A) a sum of Rs.3,83,01,548/- under cash credit loan with interest @ 72.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶25

B) a sum of Rs.20,90,723/under GECL account with interest @

¶26

9.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of

¶27

(oA.No.392/2024)

¶28

C) a sum of Rs.28,19,053/- under SLC account with interest @ 17.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶29

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in the schedules A to C to OA.

¶30

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm represented by its partners defendants No.2 &3 availed cash credit loan of Rs.150 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 29.09.2020. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 29.09.2020. The defendants arso avaired GECL of Rs.19 rakhs and renewed the existing cash credit loan of Rs.150 lakhs (overall facilities of Rs.169 rakhs) dated 28.04.2022. subsequenfly the Applicant bank enhanced the cash credit loan from Rs.150 lakhs to Rs.240 lakhs vide retter of arrangement dated 03.06.2022 and executed supprementar agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 03.06.2022. The cash credit loan of Rs.240 lakhs was enhanced to Rs.300 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 14.02.2023. On 29.09.2020, the defendant no.2 created equitabre mortgage by deposit of originar Regd sare deed document no.979/200 over schedule A property. Defendant K no.3 !f le B property and deposited original ..^{.?{ar -iffi} Regd 690/2073 dated 28.03.2013.After

¶31

(oA. No.392/2024)

¶32

availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice dated 03.08.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶33

Defendants called absent and set exparte on t8.t2.2024.

¶34

sri M. Ravinder, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.32.

¶35

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶36

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?

¶37

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.32. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in lgainst the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is made in the OA with future interest

¶38

loA.No.392/202a)

¶39

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶40

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.4,32,1 L,324/_(Rupees Four crores Thirty Two rakhs Eteven Thousand Three hundred and twenty four only) i.e.,

¶41

a) a sum of Rs.3,83,01,54gl_ under cash credit loan with interest @ 72.250/o p.afromdate of apprication tiil the date or realization;

¶42

b) a sum of Rs.20,90,723/_ under GECL account with interest @ g'250/o p'a fromdate of apprication tiil the date of rearization ;

¶43

c) a sum of Rs.28,19,053/_ under SLC account with interest @ 17.250/o p.a from date of appricationti, the date of rearization;

¶44

The Applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the mortgaged immovabre properties and hypothecated movabres as described in schedule '.A to C,, to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

10' The Appricant Bank is arso entired 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.

¶46

11, The Applicant 72. rne nppticarrt'dfrblt file a cost mehoi\within two weeks from the date

¶47

- : 4^

¶48

of receipt of order(^{iirr ": -'r}

¶49

(oA. No.392/2024)

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20ti day of March, 2025)

¶53

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶54

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

-tz'
.t r1 .. 'it
fl 't'

¶56

TRUE COP
AtSf. l|(egrruo I
DRT.', HYDIPA1AO.

State Bank of India v. Sri Srinivasa Binny Rice Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Srinivasa Binny Rice Mill

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 Manimala

Dumpala Sreelatha versus Indian Bank

Panem Siva Rama Krishnaiah versus Hdfc Bank

State Bank of India versus Panipat Jalandhar Nh Tollways Private Limited

Ms Varalakshmi Seed Processing Unit versus Bank of Baroda

Sathya Narayana Gande versus Irep Credit Capital Private Limited Rep by its Authorized Officer