Allowed

State Bank of India v. sri sai Equipments

DRT11 Mar 2025OA/979/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of dues. Finding the defendants ex-parte, the court held them liable to pay the claimed amount with future interest, costs, and authorized issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 49,41,006.50s with future interest @ 7.50% p.a., costs, and issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus sri sai Equipments — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED^{THIS THE l1TH DAY OF MARCH'2025}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH. MMESHWARKOTHE, B Com} '^{L LB' (Hons )' M A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

Original Application^{No: 979 OF 2023}

¶4

State Bank of^India, SME, R.P. Road Bible House Branch, 2nd Floor, Kayjee Mansion, Ranigunj Circle Secunderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Sri Sai Equipment, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Room No.103,1-2-7A3/A, B 126, SD Road, Jaya lvlansion, Secunderabad-500003.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

H.No.1-2-789lC, 2'o Floor, B-Block SD Road,

¶10

Secunderabad-5OOOO3.

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

Factory at: H.No.7-8, B-Block, Bhanu Complex, Autonagar, Guntur-522001.

¶13

¶14

Sri.Thogaru Ravi, S/o.Thogaru Rajamouli, Aged 57 years, Occ: Business.

¶15

R/o. Flat No. E-81, Srinivasa Heights, #20-3, Adarsh Nagar,

Nots

OA.No.97,/ZO2s

uppat, Hyderabad_sooo92.

¶20

,. ,:Ta ]lt,oraru^Madhavi_ w/o. Ihogaru Ravi. Aged: 55 years. 8jii,?!l,i.,i,liiill,#",.1^u,, fiiii?t#x13y,33ii

¶21

,..Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the Applicant : M. Venkat Divakar Defendants 1to 3 : Ex-parte

¶23

:: oRDER ::

¶24

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.49,41,006.sps from the defendants with future interest @ lOyo p.a. with monthly rests from 79.12.2023 till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶25

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that 1$ defendant is a^partnership Firm and defendant No.2 is Managing Partner and Defendant No.3 is the partner of Defendant No. 1. The Applicant Bank had sanctioned Cash Credit Loan for Working Capital for the Business for an amount of Rs.1,OO,OO,OOO /_ on Og.O3.ZO2L to the Defendant No.1.

¶26

Defendants availed the Cash Credit Loan from the Applicant. This loan is secured by way of hypothecation of their business stocks as security. Whereas the Defendant No.2 and 3 have given their personal guarantees for the loan availed by the Oefendant No.1 and executed Guarantee Agreements dated 20.03.2021 and confirmed their personal guarantee to the said cash credit limit. It is submitted !^rs'v' I '^ L , ' '1.v)

¶27

OA,No.979 /2023

¶28

that the Defendants vide their loan application dt.Ol.Og.2022 requested to renew the existing cash credit limit. The Applicant Bank sanctioned the renewal of existing loan limit vide sanction letter dt.17.09.2022. Defendants have failed to adhere to the terms f repayment and became defaulters. Applicant sent notices several times including Advocate Notice dated 21.0g.2023 to clear the loan dues. The loan account became NpA on 10.10.2023. Hence this OA. There was no response from the defendants.

¶29

Though defendants entered appearance through Mr. A. Srinivasuta Raju, they did not choose to file written statement. Hence, their right of filing of Written Statement has been forfeited for non_ representation vide docket order d ated 30.O7.2024.

¶30

Applicant examined Jeeban Mishra, Manager as AW_1 and marked 10 documents through AW_1 as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶31

Learned counsel for applicants reported no oral arguments. As stated supra, defendants 1 to 3 ex_parte.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant prayed that orders may be passed on records. Defendants, right of advancing arguments forfeited for nol-;gpl.gssptation vide docket order dated 28.02.2025.

¶33

B. The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶34

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for tle claim made in the OA against the Detendants? //Xttn^"' '<"1 (/'-,,ot'

¶35

OA,No.979/2023

¶36

The OA was filed against defendants 1 to 3. As stated supra, defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte, Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hotd that Defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay the OA claim to the Appticant Bank with future interest along with costs.

¶37

In the result, the present Original Application No.979l2023 is allowed as under: -

¶38

i) The Defendants are tiabte to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs.49,41,OO6.5Sps with future interest @ 7.5O9b p.a. simple. from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶39

ii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶40

iii) the appticant bank is entiHed for the costs.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶42

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected. s irr rtsned and pronounced by me in the open court on this

¶44

ih" ii;;;;;;;;x)E!,Eu,

¶45

//'w<.,.tt''1 \'v/

¶46

/ l,/ \'v/ (M{iEsHwAR KoTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. sri sai Equipments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. sri sai Equipments

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

Time Media versus Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Ltd.

Surapaneni Sarath Kumar versus Union Bank of India

Sai Earth Movers versus Smfg India Credit Company Limited

Venu Akula versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Venu Akula versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S Shanmuga Filling Station