Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sree Vaishnavi Stone Crusher

DRT22 Aug 2025OA/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed applicant bank's OA for recovery of Rs.35.99 lakhs with interest. Court held bank established claim via expert evidence and declared respondents liable to pay outstanding along with future interest and costs. Recovery certificate issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.35,99,545/- with 14% p.a. interest from 01.12.2021 and costs; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sree Vaishnavi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND/ PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.85 ol 2OZ2

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, SARB-2, H.No. 1-8-563/1, RTC cross road, Opp Sandhya Theatre, 1st floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 020. Represented by its authorized signatory

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sree Vaishnavi Stone Crusher, Through Proprietor Smt^p. Jyothi, Kunkudu chettu thanda, Chalakurthy, Peddavoora mandal, Nalgonda dist Telangana - 508 202.

¶9

Smt Pogula Jyothi, Proprietor, aged 54 years, Kunkudu chettu thanda, Chalakurthy, Peddavoora mandal, Nalgonda dist Telangana - 508 202.

¶10

Smt Kunreddy Nagamani, w/o Nagireddy, aged 48 years, guarantor, Haliya Village, anumula mandal, Miryalaguda division, Nalgonda district, TS - 508 377.

¶11

Sri Pogula Venkat Reddy, ( Aged 53 years, guarantor, Pangavanikunta village, Anumula Manda, Miryalaguda division, Nalgonda district, TS - 508 377.

¶12

Sri Pogula Nagarjuna reddy, Aged major, guarantor, Pangavanikunta village, Anumula

¶13

(OA.No.85/2022)

¶14

Manda, Miryalaguda division, Nalgonda district, TS - 5OB 377.

¶15

Smt Pogula Laxmamma, Aged 74 years, guarantor, Pangavanikunta village, Anumula Manda, Miryalaguda division, Nalgonda district, TS - 508 377.

¶16

Ms. Pogula Jhansi, (LR) Legal heir of defendant no.4 Kunkudu chettu thanda, Chalakurthy, Peddavoora mandal, Nalgonda dist Telangana - 5OB 202.

¶17

B. Mr. Pogula Sai Mithan Reddy, (LR) (minor) legal heir of defendani no.4 And represented by defendant no.2 Kunkudu chettu thanda, Chalakurthy, Peddavoora mandal, Nalgonda d ist Telangana - 508 202.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the^pa rties:

¶20

For the Applicant Smt JVL Bharathi

For the Defendants

Expa rte

ORDER

The Appticant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶25

recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,99,545/- (Rupees Thirty Five

¶26

Lakhs Ninet v y Nine Thousand FiVe Hundred and Forty five only) with p.a from 01.12.2021 till the date of for sale of mortgaged properties as A, eo p Inpgcfggure tt

¶27

(oA.No.8s/2022)

¶28

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Defendant no,1 is a proprietorship concern represented by defendant no.2 as its proprietor avaired term roan/ cash credit facirity of Rs.37.00 lakhs' Defendant no.3 to 6 stood as guarantors to the roan avaired by defendant no.1. Defendant no.4 expired and subsequenfly defendants 7 & 8 are added as regar heirs ofdeceased defendant no.4. After availing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sancuon, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NPA on 25.1.2015 and issued legal notice dated 01.12.2021. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants No.1 to 6 cailed absent and they were set exparte on 09.05.2023. Defendants no.7 & B were cailed absent and set exparte on 23.7.2025.

¶30

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

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

The point that a tion is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for ffi&"ⁱ OA against the Defendants as &! prayed torll *

¶33

(oA.No.8sl2022)

¶34

7' Defendants cared absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.9. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶35

B' In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under: The Defendants No.1 to 3 & 5 to B are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.35,99,541:./_ (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Forty five only) with future interest @l4o/o p.a from OL.t2.2o2l till the date of realization

¶36

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

¶37

10' The Appricant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and propertffiS.ff$S$o.Z,a and 5 to B and properries of defendant no.t{r#\o*;'ffi.";h-Eld\"r the debt due. However, the Appricant o'T,f ' ol"fi$s"M'"'k nt of estate devolved upon the legal |A a c fiUtJ nelffinaants 7 & t,lrgiilln" deceased defendant no.4.

¶38

(oA.No.8sl2022)

¶39

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

¶40

The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

by her, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶44

lflf,Irriy"jr.""i :i^,:xr]r].oj;

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

; zzAuczw ;
ft$=r,r*".#f,
.:+i.rri:t9:
_\ ! t-' - _-z-

¶49

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sree Vaishnavi Stone Crusher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sree Vaishnavi Stone Crusher

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 Lavanya Constructions versus Karur Vysya Bank

Union Bank of India versus Sri Arella Mahesh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Cubatic Arcade Private Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Protech Engineering Industries

M S P v Amarnadha Prasad and Co. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Suryanarayana J