Allowed

State Bank of India v. . M/s Mega Minerals and Mines Enterprises

DRT7 May 2025OA/48/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application, the DRT-I at Hyderabad adjudicated a claim by the State Bank of India against M/s. Mega Minerals and Mines Enterprises and its proprietrix for a total sum of Rs. 2.17 Crores comprising cash credit and term loans with attached mortgage and hypothecation. Declaring the defendants absent, the bench held that the bank established its claim and allowed the OA, confirming j

What did the court decide?

The OA is allowed; Defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,17,64,110/- with interest; recovery certificate issued; entitled to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties.

State Bank of India versus . M/s Mega Minerals and Mines… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE TINDAY OF MAY, 2O25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.48 ot 2O25

¶5

Between:

¶6

State bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, H.No1-B-563/1, First floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC'X' roads, Hyderabad, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Mega Minerals and Mines Enterprises,

¶10

A sole proprieta ry concern, Represented by its Proprietrix, Smt Lyagala Bhagya Laxmi, Sy.No.54lE2, 54/EE2, 55/AA, lakora village, Varni mandal, Nizamabad - 503 201.

¶11

Mrs. Lyagala Bhagya Laxmi, H. No.3- 10-28l, Kumarpelly, Near Budda Bhavan, Hanumakonda - 506 001.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri M.V. lanaki Ram

Expa rte

ORDER

fr*"flrr"trrfi,i&t'^',7 Ri,,,,,''#

¶20

the^present OA against Defendants for Rs.2,L7,64,L10l- (Rupees Two Crores

¶21

(OA.No.48 of 2025)

¶22

Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ten only) i.e.,

¶23

a) A sum of Rs.45,21,453/- under cash credit loan with interest @ 13.40o/o p.a with monthly rests from 29.01.2025 till the date of realization;

¶24

b) A sum of Rs.!,72,42,657/- under Term loan with in te rest @ t3.4Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from 29.0L.2025 till the date of realization

¶25

and in default for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated^properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no. is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietrix defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.160 lakhs, and Rs.40.00 lakhs under fund based cash credit facility totaling a sum of Rs.200 lakhs on 27.70.2021. Defendant no.1 executed an agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 27.L0.2021 and hypothecated all the stocks and machinery more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of schedule properties and deposited the sale deed bearing no.4697/201. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sa nction applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 01.01.2025. Inspite of several

¶27

(OA.No.48 of 20251

¶28

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

¶29

Defendants No.1& 2 called absent and set exparte on 11.04.2025. 4. Sri B.R. Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.25.

¶30

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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?

¶33

Defendants No.1 & 2 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.25. 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.

¶34

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,L7,64,tl0/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred

¶35

and

¶36

s.4 - under cash credit loan with interest @ '13.40o/o o.a from .2025 till the date of realization ; :j^{t7 itnyzoes} k#

¶37

(OA.No.48 of 2025)

¶38

b)A sum of Rs.,72,42,657/- under Term loan with interest @ 13.4Oo/o p.a from 29.01.2025 till the date of realization.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, srgned and pronounced by me in the open couTt on this the 7th day of l4ay, 2025)

¶46

sd/-

¶47

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. . M/s Mega Minerals and Mines Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. . M/s Mega Minerals and Mines 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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sree Nihar Industries

M S Dadabhai Industries versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M.S. Globe Master Robes

State Bank of India versus Sri. Chenchu Siva Prasad

State Bank of India versus Sri. Ippapula Sridhar

State Bank of India versus Sri. Maddeboina Tarakrama Rao