Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Dudipala Groups

DRT10 Dec 2025OA/130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this debt recovery case, the Tribunal allowed the SBI's application seeking recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 1,18,56,359 along with interest and costs. The bank proved its case via affidavit and documents while the defendants, who admitted liability, failed to file evidence. The Tribunal granted the bank the right to recover dues from hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability for payment of Rs. 1,18,56,359 with interest; permission to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dudipala Groups — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE loth DAy OF DECEMBE& 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.13O ot 2025

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095.

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1, M/s. Dudipala Groups, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Dudipala Veera Krishna, S/o Babu, aged 38 years,

¶11

Male, D. No. 1 5-t3-37 Ll L, Bank colony, Khammam

¶12

Telangana - 507 002.

¶13

Also at:

¶14

H.No.,1-33l1, Kotapadu village, Raghunathapalem mandal, Khammam - 507 002, TS.

¶15

Mr. Dudipala Sreenivas, s/o D. Venkaiah, aged 41 years, male, H,No.1-37, Kotapadu village, Raghunathapalem mandal, Khammam - 507 OO2,

¶16

0PlltZM *
fr

¶17

(OA.No.130 of 2025)

¶18

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri C. Prabhakar For the Defendants Sri D. Raghavulu Reserved on 05.L2.2025 Pronounced on LO.12.2025 Uploaded in website on t0.t2.2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,1g,56,359/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Nine only) i.e.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.1,01,92,726/- with further interest @ L2o/o p.a with monthry rests from date of filing of oA till the date of rearization;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.16,63,633/- with further interest @ 9.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of rearization; and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank

¶24

states that 1st defendant is a proprietary concern represented by its

¶25

lakhs

¶26

dated more

¶27

created

¶28

(OA.No.130 of 2O2s)

¶29

equitable mortgage on tL.02.2021 by way of deposit of sale deed no.7525/20t9 dated 11.06.2019 and sare deed no.11798/2019 dated 09.09.2019 in respect of schedure II and uI to oA. The defendants also availed GECL loan of Rs.19.00 lakhs on 23.t2.2021and executed supplementar agreement of roan cum hypothecation. It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants have avaired the said roan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was crassified as NpA and issued regar notice dated 26.03.2025. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.l,lg,563519/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Nine only) with further interest @ L2o/o p.a and @9.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA tilr the date of realization. Hence the oA.

¶30

The Defendants no.1 & 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants admitted the hypothecation of movabres and creation of mortgage in respect of schedule property and deposit of tifle deeds in favour of Appricant bank. It is further submitted defendants made part payment of dues and 5.50ps on27.02.2025 and sum of Rs.1.00 yed for dismissal of OA. iiE¹⁸ lFcM

¶31

¶32

(OA.No.130 of 2o2s)

¶33

3' The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Smt Kalyani Rathod, Manager of Bank as AW.1 and through her marked 20 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.20. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his chief Evidence. In spite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 06.11.2025.

¶34

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶36

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶37

ii) To what relief ?

¶38

Point No.i):

¶39

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Appricant Bank, but failed nt. All the amounts paid by the defendants & ffid, ent of account filed by Applicant placed any material documents to

¶40

Bank. rhe l"Ile?*tlfun.,1

¶41

(OA.No.130 of 2025)

¶42

show their bonafides for establishing that the Applicant bank failed to follow the guidelines in classifying the account as NpA.

¶43

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.20 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly estabrished that the defendants are liabre to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶44

Point No.ai)

¶45

In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶46

The Defendants are joinfly and severally riabre to pay to Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,18,56,359/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen

¶47

Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Nine only) i.e.,

¶48

a) A sum of Rs.1,01,92 ,726/- with further interest @ l2o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶49

b) A sum of Rs.16,63,633/- with further interest @ 9.25o/o p.a from

¶50

till the date of realization;

¶51

1t]
f-rYi
BR'

¶52

(oA.No.130 of 2025)

¶53

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged schedure properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the clebt due.

¶54

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶55

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

¶56

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶57

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶59

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of Dec,2025)

¶60

sdl-

¶61

(c. GoPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

dqalffi
fr* sl.5
*
10 0t[
'"-;. ,,
"'ryfiW

¶63

$.,.-

State Bank of India v. M/S. Dudipala Groups

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Dudipala Groups

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

Canara Bank versus Pokkula Sandhya

Sri Venkata Sai Traders and Another versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S. Koolsafe Global

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Stick Lables India Private Limited

Smt Sangeeta Agarwal versus the Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Mr Paravelli Rajesh versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited