Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Goutham Petroleums

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/407/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 20,69,381/- along with future interest on two loan accounts. The court held that the bank established its case prima facie and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,69,381/- with future interest: @12.30% on Rs. 18,39,881 and @9.65% on Rs. 2,30,100. Issue of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

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

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 407 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (SARB), 2Nd F|oor, TSRTC,

¶6

Bus Terminal Complex (Commuter Amenity Center), Koti, Hyderabad,

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Goutham Petroleums,

¶11

Represented by its Proprietor Sri. M. Mani Kumar, Major, Male, D.No. 22-1 70, Achampet, Nagur Kurnool,

¶12

Nagar Kurnool District - 509 209.

¶13

¶14

Proprietor of M/s. Goutham Petroleums, Nagar

Guntur - 522

f 25ss{\1q

(oA. No. a0l202s)

Also At - H.No. 6-78, Palaparru, Peddanandipadu Mandal, Guntur district - 522235,

¶19

Also At - H.no. 2441 4, srinivasa Colony, TS RTC Bus Depot, Achampet Road, Nagar Kurnool - 509 375 Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the parties :

¶21

For The Applicant Sri. P.V. Satyanarayana For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 18.11.2025 Pronounced on 20.11.2025 Upload in website on 25.11.2025

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.20,69,381/-. (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty One Only) i.e a sum of -

¶24

.,., *
\r:A
.i...i;:.

¶25

1l-. (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty Nine Hundred and Eighty One Only) with future

¶26

(oA. No. a07l202s)

¶27

interest @ 12.30% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶28

(ii) Rs.2,30,100/-. (Rupees Two Lakhs Thifi Thousand and One Hundred Only) with future interest @ 9.65% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶29

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule to OA.

¶30

¶31

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 is a Proprietorship Firm represented by its proprietor Defendant No. 2 availed Cash Credit loan limit of Rs.35.00 Lakhs with interest @12.30% p.a with monthly rests and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 12.05.2016 in favour of the applicant bank. The defendants availed GECLMCTL loan limit of Rs.8.90 Lakhs with interest @9.65%^{p.a with monthly rests repayabte} in 60 EMt of Rs.3,902/-. The said loan facilities were renewed and enhanced from time to time by the defendants. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 21.02.2025 and issued Demand notice on 21.02.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2O02 and Legat Notice dated 18.OB.2O2S. tnspite ,,'^{of severhl rdquests and demands,} the defendants did not clear the ,,ouffinding.,Hence^{this OA.}

¶32

(oA. No. 40712025)

¶33

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 17.11.2025.

¶34

Sri. Ganji Prasad, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A.,l 9.

¶35

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶36

o. The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant

¶37

bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the

¶38

Defendants as prayed for?

¶39

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.19. ln 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 entiiled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶40

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under : The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.20,69,3g1/_. (Rupees fw1! Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Ei$hff-P1e.only) i.e a sum of -

¶41

'.''."^^'r</sup>

¶42

,,^{(i[,,ffie,s.$*forl-.(RupeesEighteen Lakhs Thirty Nine} " Thousand [Wo Hundred and Eighty One Only) with future

¶43

lOA.^No.aO7 /ZO25l

¶44

interest @ 12.30% p.a with monthry rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶45

(ii) Rs.2,30,100/-. (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand and One Hundred Only) with future interest @ 9.65% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶46

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables mentioned in the Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No. 2 and properties of defendant No.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶49

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

¶50

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶51

{{,{;,!. 9o*municate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

j{Dictaied-torhe P.A- ranscribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on .^{.thisthe 2ol.day of Nov,2O2S)}

¶53

rRh,i
sd/-
Lh";--,
!ss!. (G. GOPTCHAND)
DRT.I, U PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Goutham Petroleums

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Goutham Petroleums

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamma Upender versus State Bank of India

Alakuntla Yellaiah versus Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited

G Sreedharan versus Bank of Baroda

Central Bank of India versus Sri. Mohd. Khaleel

Canara Bank versus Sri. Sura Sree Harsha

State Bank of India versus Smt. Jonnada Sravani