Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Subhan Polymers Rep by Its Proprietor

DRT13 Aug 2025OA/123/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed Original Application No.12312025 filed by State Bank of India. It held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed debt with future interest. The bank is entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendants' properties. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are directed to pay Rs.23,02,077 with future interest; the claim secured by hypothecation; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Subhan Polymers Rep by Its… — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF^{AUGUST, 2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.),IY.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO :} t23 0F 2025

¶4

State Bank of Indla., SMECC Branch, Cyberabad No.12-6-39/ AlzF, Y Junction Ku katpa lly, Hyderabad - 5OOO72 Medchal - Malkajgiri Dlstrict. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Subhan Polymers., Rep by its Proprietor 5-9-262/U3 Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Prashanthi^Nagar Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072.

¶8

Mohd. Praveen Begum Proprietor of M/s.Subhan Polymers Female, Major, 5-9-26211/3 Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Prashanthi Nagar Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072.

¶9

... Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.P.V.Satyanarayana

Defenda nts

: Ex-parte

:: :: LL[!-(

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a^total sum of Rs.23,02,0771- frcm the defendants^jointlyand severally with future interest @11.9olo^p.a. at monthly^rests from the date of application till the date of reallzation^along with costs and in default for sale of hvoothecated ,' lrrrt {.:-qassets. ,/^-.r'!'

¶15

¶16

oA.NO.123l2025

¶17

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 04.07.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Kalyani Rathod, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assefs2

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupred with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.06 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the oA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.12312025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.23,02,077l- with future interest @9.9%

¶25

oA.NO.123l2025

¶26

¶27

p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶29

iii ) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accord in^g ly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th Day of August, 2025).

¶34

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

State Bank of India v. M/S. Subhan Polymers Rep by Its Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Subhan Polymers Rep by Its Proprietor

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Cygen Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sikkolu Industries Private Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Omega Roofing Industries Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Smt. Manne Aruna Jyothi.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Rashi Jewels

Canara Bank versus Sri Akheel Khan