Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Tirupati Associates, a Proprietary Concern Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Namdeo S/O Vishwanath Kadu

DRT21 Aug 2025OA/633/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues under Section 19 of RDB Act. Defendants were set ex parte. Tribunal disallowed penal interest but granted principal amounts with modified future interest rates.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 45,22,353.67 and Rs. 5,26,035 with simple future interest at 9% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S Tirupati Associates, a… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Page 1 of 4 O.A. No. 633/2023

¶2

PRESENTED ON : 03.08.2023 REGISTERED ON : 30.10.2023

¶3

Exh. No. 10

¶4

BEFORE THE PO, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR Delivered by Pankaj Kumar

¶5

O.A. No. 633/2023

¶6

State Bank of India

¶7

: Applicant

¶8

A corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, SMECC Branch, Shradhanand Peth Nagpur

¶9

Nagpur - 400022 Phone No. 0712-6607938,

¶10

Acting through its one of the Principal Officer Chief Manager i.e. Shri Pramod Sakharam More Aged about 51 Years, having authority to file the Original Application which includes the authority to verify & sign the Original Application.

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. M/s Tirupati Associates

¶13

: Defendants

¶14

A proprietary concern acting through its proprietor Shri Namdeo S/o Vishwanath Kadu, Aged about : 61 Years, Occupation : Business R/o. : Plot No. 1 to 7, Shubham Apartment, Ujwal Society, Near Hanuman Mandir, Narendra Nagar, Nagpur - 440015 Email ID : [email protected]

¶15

2. Shri Namdeo S/o Vishwanath Kadu

¶16

Aged about : 61 Years, Occupation : Business R/o. : Plot No. 1 to 7, Shubham Apartment, Ujwal Society, Near Hanuman Mandir, Narendra Nagar, Nagpur - 440015

¶17

Page 2 of 4 O.A. No. 633/2023

¶18

Also At :

¶19

Ward No. 4, Near Panchayat Samiti, Ashti

¶20

Wardha – 442202

¶21

PAN No. AZZPK7771N

¶22

Aadhar No. 9419 5510 1786

¶23

Learned Counsel for Applicant	Adv. Y. Ramani Patro
Defendants Set Exparte On	19.11.2024

¶24

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 21^st Day of August, 2025)

¶25

This is an application filed by the applicant U/s 19 of RDB Act, 1993 against defendants for recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 50,92,567/- with costs and future interest with monthly rests from date of filing Of O.A. till its realization as under :-

¶26

A. An amount of Rs. 45,66,532.67/- outstanding in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 31395245167 with costs and future interest @13% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization.

¶27

B. An amount of Rs. 5,26,035/- outstanding in GECL Loan Account No. 40683361507 with costs and future interest @9.25% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization.

¶28

Though, defendants were duly served with the suit summons vide Exh. 6 & 7, they failed to cause appearance before this Tribunal

¶29

Page 3 of 4 O.A. No. 633/2023

¶30

to defend their case despite granting several adjournments. Hence , the proceeding against defendants was set exparte on 19.11.2024.

¶31

The applicant has filed its Claim Affidavit (Exh. 9) and List of Documents (Exh. 4), annexing therewith 22 documents. The original documents therein are marked as Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/21. The applicant has stated in the O.A. as well as in claim affidavit that total penal interest of Rs. 44,179/- has been charged in the Cash Credit Loan Account.

¶32

Heard Learned counsel for the applicant.

¶33

As stated supra, defendants remained exparte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz. Exh. AW -1/1 to AW-1/21 marked on behalf of the applicant, clinches the claim of the applicant against defendants. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced on behalf of applicant. Hence, defendants are liable to pay, jointly and severally, the claim of the applicant with costs and future interest. However, I am not inclined to allow total penal interest of Rs. 44,179/- applied in Cash Credit Loan Account.

¶34

Hence, it is ordered as under:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

A] O.A. No. 633/2023 is allowed to the extent as under with costs.

¶37

B] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 45,22,353.67/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three and Paise Sixty Seven Only) outstanding in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 31395245167 with

¶38

Page 4 of 4 O.A. No. 633/2023

¶39

simple future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶40

C] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 5,26,035/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Thirty Five Only) outstanding in GECL Loan Account No. 40683361507 with simple future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶41

D] It is declared that charge of outstanding dues is kept on hypothecated goods as mentioned in Schedule-I annexed to the O.A. and as referred in Exh. AW-1/2, AW-1/4, AW-1/6, AW-1/8, AW-1/12, AW-1/15 and AW-1/17.

¶42

E] Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

F] The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the parties to this O.A at once.

¶44

Nagpur

¶45

Date : 21.08.2025

¶46

Pankaj Kumar Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Nagpur

State Bank of India v. M/S Tirupati Associates, a Proprietary Concern Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Namdeo S/O Vishwanath Kadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Tirupati Associates, a Proprietary Concern Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Namdeo S/O Vishwanath Kadu

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

M/S a. B. Nimbalkar through Its Patner Shri Arun Bhaiyyaji Nimbalkar versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Achhar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Hardeep Singh

Sandeep Singh Slathia versus Punjab National Bank

Jayaprakashan P versus Indian Overseas Bank

M/S C Gems and Jewels Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab and Sind Bank