Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited

DRT5 Feb 2026OA/60/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed State Bank of India's recovery application against multiple defendants, including a company and its guarantors, for unpaid loan amounts totaling approximately Rs.23.78 crores, directed realization from mortgaged properties and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23.78 crores (reduced by Rs.9.31 crores already paid) with interest, costs, and recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE srH DAy OF FEBRUARY,20.26

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.6O ot 2023

Between:

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Management Branch-II, lst floor, commuter Amenity centre (CAC) TSRTC bus station, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. TS. Represented by its Asst Gen Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. MBR Exims Pvt Limited, Shop no.7 & 8, Kavitha Complex, Godown road, Nizamabad - 503 001.

¶10

Mr. Gaddam Naveen Kumar, S/o Gaddam Gopi Krishna, Occ: business, major, male, H.No. 1 1-1-1929, Gangasthan-1, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶11

Mr. Mamidi Amarnath Reddy, S/o Mamidi Laxman Reddy, Occ: business, major, H.No. 1 1-1-1917 /3C, cangasthan Phase-1, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶12

,.€,19ri Mamidi Ram Reddy,

¶13

il^s- occ: business F 23-34s1),,.and 3lL,

¶14

rao park, -⁵⁰⁰ 034.

¶15

(OA.No.60 of 2023)

¶16

Mr. Mamidi Gajanand Reddy, S/o Late Sri M. Bajanna, major, Villa no.220, Avenue no.15, Splendid Aparna^palm Meadows, Kompally, TS - 500 014.

¶17

Ms. Mamidi Latha, w/o M. Gajanand Reddy, major, villa no.22Q, Avenue no.15, Splendid Aparna^palm Meadows, Kompally, TS - 500 014.

¶18

Mr. Mamidi Laxma Reddy, S/o Late M. Bajanna, male, Occ: business, major, H.No. 1 1-1-19 17 /3C, Gangasthan Phase-1, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶19

Mrs. Mamidi Jayalaxmi, w/o M. Laxman Reddy, Occ: business, major, H.No. 1 1-1-1917/3, Gangasthan Phase-1, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶20

Ms. Nanimela Mounika Reddy, D/o N. Mruthyam Reddy, Major, H.No. 1 1-1-1835/3, Maruthi nagar, Nizamabad- 503 002.

¶21

M/s. Mamidi Bajanna Para Boiled Rice Mill, A partnership firm, represented by its Partner M. Ram Reddy, H. No.6-2-200 /35/2, Subhasnagar, Nizamabad - 505 002.

¶22

Defendants

¶23

Sri M.V. lanaki Ram

¶24

r0efenda
.;{ | fl". '.^F'lh
Defehdant no.10

Sri Vivek Jain

Exparte

(OA.No.50 of 2023)

Orders reserved on : 05.01.2026 Pronounced on : 05.02.2026 Uploaded in website on : 05.02.2026

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,78,68,054.21ps (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Seventy Eight Thousand Sixty Eight Thousand Fifty four and paise Twenty One only) i.e.,

¶31

a) A sum of Rs.12,07,18,773.31ps under cash credit loan account with further interest @ 10.55% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization'

¶32

b) A sum of Rs.4,34,94,188.69ps under GECL-1 loan account with further interest @ 9.3olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

c) A sum of Rs.5,35,84,706.58ps under WCTL account with further interest @ 10.55o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

d) A sum of Rs.2,00,70,385.63ps under GECL-1.0 account with further interest @ 9.30olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶35

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedules "A to D" to OA.

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank

¶37

:ompanieF- A cct availed working capital finance of Rs.22.00 crores (FBD i.rsub.'limit of,nSiO Crores) and non fund based limits of Rs.1.19 crore : Rs.23.19 crores on 13.02.2019. Defendanrs no.2, I totii rieT,ig a J,H "t IJrfl 3 'i^,. ^lr'.:^,

¶38

(OA.No.60 of 2023)

¶39

3 and 6 are the directors of the defendant no.l Company and defendants No.2 to B stood as guarantors and created equitable mortgage over the schedure properties more fu[y described in the schedule to OA. As a security for the credit facility of Rs.23.19 Crores, the defendant no.4 created equitable mortgage of property by depositing the tifle deed bearing no.9587/2001, 6517/ZOO3, Defendants no.2 to 10 created equitable mortgage of schedule properties in favour of Appricant bank. As a security for the credit facility of Rs.23.19 Crores, the defendant no.7 created equitable mortgage of property by depositing the tifle deed bearing no.1384/1969 and ROR document no.4322. The defendant no.3 created equitabre mortgage of property by depositing the tifle deed bearing no.6517/2003. The defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of property by depositing the title deed bearing no.t07 3 / L999,10946/ 2006,t tLSg / 2OOZ,Ltt6O I 2002, ttL6L / 2022 and t7I62/2020. Defendants no. 2 to 7 and 9 executed a guarantee agreement in favour of the sME, Nizamabad branch of Appricant bank. The Applicant bank renewed the credit facirities to the tune of Rs.24.g2 crores vide letter dated 3L03.2022 and defendants no.2,3 and 4 ;upplemental^{agreementof loan} cum hypothecation on t1(,'lrVOothecated all the stocks, raw materials, plant and i. .^'i., aiid'rother assets in favour of applicant bank. It is i-:"i1n ubmitted Dy the-Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such

¶40

¶41

(OA.No.60 of 2023)

¶42

the account was classified as NpA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 30.12.2022, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.23179,69,054.21ps (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Seventy Eight Thousand Sixty Eight Thousand Fifty four and paise Twenty One only) with interest @ 10.55o/o p,a and @ 9.30% p.a with monthly restsfrom date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶43

The Defendants No.l and 7 filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It is submitted by the defendants that the loan facilities availed by defendant no.1 company are under four different categories namely packing credit (EpC), guaranteed emergency credit line (GECL)-1, guaranteed emergency credit line (GECL)-2 and working capital term loan. It is submitted that Applicant bank permitted the release of specified properties for sale on condition that a payment of Rs.B,61,OO,OO0/- to be made against such release, Pursuant to the same, the Applicant stipulated that for the property under Sl.No.10, a sum of Rs.1,65,00,000/- for property under Sl.No.11, a sum of Rs.1,16,00,000/- and for property under ' :_ r,. Sl.l',Io:12, a siim. of Rs.5,80,00,000/- to be paid. However the * ii,.l^{Bpfopertie3tndersr.no.10 and 11 were rereased and againstthe same,} of Rs.1,65,00,000/- and Rs.1,16,00,000/- were deposited

¶44

(oA.No.60 of 2023)

¶45

with the applicant bank. It is submitted that the defendant company filed WP.No.10659 of 2023 before Hon'ble Telangana High Court challenging the action of applicant bank in classifying the loan accounts as NPA on 08.10.2022. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dispose off the WP.No.10659/2023. Defendant no.6 filed SA.No,211l2023 to declare the possession notice dated L2.04.2023, sale notice dated 15.05.2023 and E-auction conducted on 26.06.2023 and obtained conditional interim stay. It is further submitted that in compliance of interim orders of this Tribunal, the defendants No.5 & 6 deposited a sum of Rs.16.00 lakhs vide memo dated 20.07.2023. Defendant no.4 filed SA.2t2/2023 and obtained interim orders which was complied pursuant to orders dated 20.6.2023. As per OTS proposal the defendants paid a sum of Rs.1.10 Crores on 09.08.2023. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶46

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶47

Heard the arguments.

¶48

5, Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶49

't -\ " i) Whqltqr the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA i:; :. ;+. :.'", . aqainst tn-,e defendants ?

¶50

I^{qii) Tiitvhatrelief?}

¶51

¶52

(OA.No.50 of 2023)

¶53

Mr. Chittaranjan Sahoo, Manager/ AW,1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.66 are marked through AW.1. The Applicant bank filed a part satisfaction memo stating that a sum of Rs.g.3r crores was paid by defendants.

¶54

As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount, All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not praced any materiar documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the Applicant bank failed to follow the RBI guidelines as per the norms.

¶55

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.66 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The d.*elicg.lt.bank^{clearly establishedthat the defendants are tiabte to pay} . s...-.',,:i";i.,.._ r':"- 1ne olraryffi to the Applicant bank.

¶56

Pointlio.ii) 1 r', i,' ilr;b 8i:^:In the iesult, (lle present original application is allowed with costs as

¶57

(OA.No.60 of 2023)

¶58

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,78,G8,O54.21ps (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Seventy Eight Thousand Sixty Eight Thousand Fifty four and paise Twenty One only) LESS a sum of Rs.g.31 Crores paid

¶59

by defendants;

¶60

a) A sum of Rs.12,07,18,713.3Lps under cash credit loan account with further interest @ 10.55o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶61

b) A sum of Rs.4,34,94,L88.69ps under GECL-1 loan account with further interest @ 9.3olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶62

c) A sum of Rs.5,35,84,706.58ps under WCTL account with further interest @ 10.55o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶63

d) A sum of Rs.2,00,70,385.63ps under GECL-1.0 account with further interest @ 9.30o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶64

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

¶65

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 9 and properties of defendants no.1 and 10 Companies towards realization of the debt due.

¶66

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

¶67

^{Thg Applicant,shallfile a cost memowithin two weeksfrom the date}

¶68

., 7 tt of receipt ofi,fder. ti

¶69

(oA.No.60 of 2023)

¶70

13. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly,

¶71

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶72

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

¶73

sdl-

¶74

.;
' fl(IJ

¶75

(G.GOP|CHAND) PRESID!NG OFFICER

¶76

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karthik Singh Deepawale versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Mrs Urmila Goel versus Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Sri Kolluri Adithya Sai

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saritha Industries

Navneeta Agarwal versus State Bank of India

Smt Siddula Durga versus Shriram Finance Limited