Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S. Srinivasa Talkies And 4 Others vs The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3793 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3793 Tel
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2024

Telangana High Court

M/S. Srinivasa Talkies And 4 Others vs The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ... on 12 September, 2024

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                         AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

               WRIT PETITION No.12678 of 2009
ORDER:

(per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Ms. B. Shailaja, learned counsel appears for

Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. A. Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel for

State Bank of Hyderabad appears for respondent No.3.

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have assailed the

validity of the order dated 25.05.2005 passed by the Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.225 of 2003, as

well as the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Debts

Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissing R.A.No.41

of 2006 preferred by the petitioners.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Petition briefly

stated are that the petitioners obtained a loan of Rs.3,50,000/-

from respondent No.3 - State Bank of India, Hyderabad

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), for construction of a

cinema talkies. The petitioners secured the amount of loan by 2 CJ & JSR, J

creating an equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule

properties. The petitioners could not repay the amount of loan.

Thereupon, the Bank was constrained to file a suit, namely,

O.S.No.25 of 1990 before the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Sattupalli, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,93,264/-.

4. In the aforesaid civil suit, a preliminary decree was

passed on 31.03.2001. Against the aforesaid preliminary

decree, defendant Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 filed an appeal, namely,

A.S.No.2481 of 2001 before the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh. The aforesaid appeal was allowed vide

judgment and decree dated 12.12.2001 by which a Bench of

this Court modified the decree passed by the trial Court and

directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,93,264/- along

with interest @15% per annum with quarterly rests from the

date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, simple interest

@ 15% per annum from the date of decree till the date of

realization. The Bank filed an Execution Petition, namely,

E.P.No.46 of 2002 before the Civil Court. The aforesaid

proceeding, on constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

was transferred to the Tribunal and was numbered as 3 CJ & JSR, J

O.A.No.225 of 2003. The Debts Recovery Tribunal by an

order dated 24.05.2005 allowed the aforesaid O.A. and issued

the recovery certificate.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal, namely,

R.A.No.41 of 2006, before the Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an order

dated 31.01.2007 inter alia held that the petitioners are not

entitled to claim the benefit of One Time Settlement

(hereinafter referred to as 'OTS') Scheme issued by the

Reserve Bank of India dated 29.01.2003 as OTS Scheme is

applicable only to the cases where the decree has not been

passed. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal affirmed the

order dated 24.05.2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal

and dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid factual background,

this Writ Petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

Debts Recovery Tribunal grossly erred in issuing a recovery

certificate for a sum of Rs.12,20,623/-. It is further submitted

that the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as the Debts 4 CJ & JSR, J

Recovery Appellate Tribunal grossly erred in awarding

interest @15% per annum. It is argued that the Debts

Recovery Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs.66,507/-

on account of Advocate Fee and other charges.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

Bank has supported the order passed by the Debts Recovery

Tribunal.

8. We have considered the rival submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record.

9. Admittedly, the Bank had filed O.S.No.25 of 1990

before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattupalli, for recovery

of a sum of Rs.5,93,264/-. It is not in dispute that in the

aforesaid civil suit, a preliminary decree was passed on

31.03.2001. Against the aforesaid decree, defendant Nos.1, 2,

8 and 9 preferred an appeal, namely, A.S.No.2481 of 2001.

The aforesaid appeal was allowed by judgment and decree

dated 12.12.2001 and the judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court was modified and the defendants were directed to

pay a sum of Rs.5,93,264/- together with interest @15% per 5 CJ & JSR, J

annum with quarterly rests from the date of the suit till the date

of decree and thereafter, simple interest @15% per annum

from the date of decree till realization. The aforesaid judgment

and decree has attained finality and therefore, the contention

urged on behalf of the petitioners that the interest could not

have been awarded @ 15% does not deserve acceptance.

10. So far as the submission that the petitioners are entitled

to OTS Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated

29.01.2003 is concerned, it is noteworthy that the guidelines

relating to the aforesaid Scheme was considered by the

Supreme Court in X-Calibre Knives (Petitioner) Ltd. v. State

Bank of India 1 and it was held that the guidelines of the

aforesaid Scheme apply only in cases where the decree has not

been passed. In the instant case, the decree against the

petitioners has already passed on 31.03.2001 and therefore, the

aforesaid Scheme floated by the Reserve Bank of India on

29.01.2003 subsequently does not apply to the facts of the

case. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has therefore

rightly negatived the contention of the learned counsel for the

(2005) 10 SCC 265 6 CJ & JSR, J

petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of the

OTS Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated

29.01.2003.

11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact

recorded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as the Debts

Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

12. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

____________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J 12th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

kvni

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter