Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Karthikeya Constructions and Developers

DRT15 May 2025OA/475/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Debt Recovery Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 29,55,924 along with interest against the construction firm and its guarantors, who were absent. The Tribunal held the bank established its claim based on documents exhibited.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 29,55,924 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Karthikeya Constructions and… — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THrS THE 15rH DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶5

OA.No.475 ol 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

State Bank of India, Isnapur branch, Near Telephone Exchange, Isnapur "X" roads, Sangareddy district, TS.

¶8

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Sri Karthikeya Constructions & Developers, represented by its Managing partners Sri E. Vara Prasad, &Smt E. Satya Bharathi,

¶12

H.No,9-9311 1, PNR colony,

¶13

Sangareddy, Sangareddydist- 502 001.

¶14

Mr. E. Vara Prasad, s/o Sri E. Surya Rao, male, major, R/o 9-85/2, road no.3, vidyanagar, pothireddypalli, sangareddy town, Sangareddy district - 502 307.

¶15

3, Smt E. Satya Bharathi, w/o Sri E. Vara Prasad, female, major, R/o 9-85/2, road no.3, vidyanagar, pothireddypalli, sangareddy town, Sangafed.d$=.* - district - 502 307. -iil}'^n;\l Defendants aq*:_,rft"*D

¶16

counser for the Parties:^.ft'"& For the Applicant Satyanarayana For the Defendants

-.;

(oA.No.475/2024]|

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,55,924l-^{(Rupees Twenty Nine} Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine hundred and^{Twenty four} only) with further interest @^{13.600lop.a with monthly rests from} date of application till the date of^{realization and in defaultfor sale} of hypothecated movables and mortgaged^{propertiesas mentionedin} the schedule to OA.

¶21

As^per the averments in the application, the^{ApplicantBankstates} that defendant No.1 is a^partnership firm^{represented by its partners/} defendants 2 & 3 availed cash credit limit of^{Rs.24lakhs on} t2.07.2019.Defendants 2 & 3 stood as^{guarantorsfor due repayment} of outstanding liability and executed^{guarantee agreement dated} t2.07.2019. Defendants 2 & 3 deposited the^{title deedsbearing} Regd Sale deed no.21103 of 2013, Regd deed of^{rectification} no.16138 of 2015 and regd sale deed no.16293 of^{2014 and its regd} deed of rectification no.16136 of^{2015dated 05.09'2015 relating to} the OA schedule properties. After^{availingthe loan facilities, the} defendants failed to comply the terms of^{sanction, hence the}

¶22

fied the account as NPA on )n 29.L2.2023^and apprrc;m;l,ft '-W 'B leg&notice 26.11.2024. Inspite of several requests * 1 5 rilAY 206

¶23

;.!

¶24

(oA.No.47sl2024)

¶25

and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding.^Hence this OA.

¶26

3, Defendants No,1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on^28.3.2025.

¶27

Sri P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined^himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents,^which are^markedas Ex.A,1 to A.12.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

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?

¶30

Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. 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.12.^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 entitled to recover the claim made in the OA^with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under;

¶32

,,," 4fu::HiB\ jointly and severally liable to pay to the
cant Bank a* sum of Rs.29,55,924l- (Rupees Twenty
{[Y 7ffi -..
,*i
,r,',,t#f,
'
,.",i,

¶33

¶34

(oA. No.47sl2024)

¶35

Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine hundred and Twenty four

¶36

only) with further interest @ 13,600/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶37

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;

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

14, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this.the 15th day of May, 2025)

¶44

sd/-
* (G. GOPTCHAND)
,lt.Y-117w" PRESIDING OFFICER
a6d8
1 5 I'!AY ?.06 i!-,
DR7-I, HY?ER^8AD
(!f.i'.,,*#
$.,i,[ii'*9

¶45

State Bank of India v. Sri. Karthikeya Constructions and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Karthikeya Constructions and Developers

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ramanarao Nibhanapuri

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mahendra Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Sri. Mohana Krishna Traders

State Bank of India versus Sri. Konne Sathyanarayana

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Geeta Priyanka Vyde