Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Rojas Industries

DRT7 Nov 2025OA/15/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India seeking recovery of dues from M/s. Rojas Industries representing proprietor Mrs. Saka Shailaja. The court held the bank entitled to the claim and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate directed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay principal-plus interest; Costs awarded to Applicant.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Rojas Industries — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICIIAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.15 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SME branch, H,No.2-B-242, 1st floor, Maruthi complex, Capt V. Raghunand Road, Karimnagar Town and Telangana -505 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Rojas Industries, A^proprietary concern, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs. Saka Shailaja, Wo^NagenderRao, H.No.6-6-981, Shivaji nagar, Karimnagar - 505 001.

¶10

Mrs. Saka Shailaja, w/o Nagender Rao, aged major, occ: business, H.No.2-10-689, Jyothi nagar, Near Old DIG building, Karimnagar - 505 001.

¶11

And also at

¶12

Surveyno,439D&B, Colony, Karimnagar Thimmapur dist - 505^(V) tw !r * l' B i ilo'J 2ffi .! rvl - .,1I tl

¶13

(OA.No.15 of 2022)

¶14

CounselfortheParties:
FortheApplicant	SriV.Raghu
Fordefendants	SriB.SreenivasReddy
Reservedon	19.08.2025
Pronouncedon	07.tL.2025
Uploadedin websiteon	10.11.2025

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA against Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of^{Rs.2,17,77.,2O2l- (Rupees Two Crores} Seventeen Lakhs Seventy^{One ThousandTwo Hundred and Two} only) i.e.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.93,23,109/-^{in respect of term loan-I account with} subsequent interest @10.15olo^{p.awith monthly rests from} 21.0L.2022 till the date^{of realization} ;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.85,36,4L71-^{in respect of term loan-Il account with} subsequent interest @10.15olo^{p.awith monthly restsfrom} 2L.0t.2022 till the date^{of realization} ;

¶19

c) A sum of^{Rs.9,81,7201-in respect of cash creditaccountwith} subsequent interest @8.15o/o^{p.awith monthly rests from} 2t.0L.20 realization; of term loan-I account^with with monthly rests^from

¶20

(OA.No.15 of 2022)

¶21

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

The averments made in the OA in brief are as follows: The defendant no.1 being a proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 as its proprietrix availed term loan under CGTMSE scheme for a sum of Rs,75.00 lakhs on 22.02.20L7. To secure the due repayment of the dues, the defendants hypothecated the machinery and movables and hypothecated the movables more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement. On L7.e2.2Olg, the defendants again availed fresh term loan of Rs.72.00 lakhs with a total facilities of Rs.1,47,00,000/- and agreed to repay the amount. The defendants executed supplemental agreement and guarantee agreement in favour of applicant bank. The defendants availed renewal / enhanced limit i.e., term loan -I of Rs.78.00 lakhs, Term loan-Il of Rs.71.00 lakhs, FITL of Rs.29.00 lakhs and CC facility of Rs.9.00 lakhs totaling a sum of Rs.1,87,00,000/- and executed supplemental agreement and guarantee agreement.

¶23

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants having availed the said loan facilities failed to keep up the repayment schedule, was classified as NPA on 06.09.2021 and the ISS al notice dated 10.01.2022 directing the nding amount. Inspite of demands made have not regularized the account,

¶24

(OA.No.1s of 2022)

¶25

and did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.2,t7,7L,ZOZ/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred and Two only) with further interest @10.15olo p.a & @ g.15olo p.a with monthly rests from 2I.0L.2022 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶26

Defendants No.1 & 2 filed common Written statement contending that the Applicant bank sanctioned term loan facilities, but the same were not disbursed as per terms of sanction letter. It is further submitted that the Central Government sanctioned subsidy of Rs.24,34,575/against the Plant & Machinery which was deposited with the Applicant bank. The State Government sanctioned investment subsidy of Rs.61,92,t47/- and the same is lying with the applicant bank. The fixed deposit with the Applicant bank amounts to 25o/o of loan disbursed, which was not considered by the Applicant bank while declaring the account as NPA. It is further contended that the defendants paid substantial amounts towards loan account but without considering the payments, the applicant bank flled the OA. Hence the OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

During the coufjislf{l,4 OqS,'..t of Applicant Bank, Sri G.^prasad, Manager is eiahined e'ra., utsli\rorgn him marked 19 documents aTHrlU2W^*

¶28

r!,dIt a c., -*. W,m69

¶29

(OA.No.15 of 2022)

¶30

as Ex.A.1 & A.19. Defendant no.2 examined herself as DW.1 and but

¶31

no documents filed by her.

¶32

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶33

Heard the arguments.

¶34

Now, the^points that arise for consideration are:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) To what relief ?

¶37

Point No.i):

¶38

The specific contention of the applicant bank is that defendant^no.1 which is a^proprietary concern represented by defendant^no.2 as^its proprietrix availed term loan under CGTMSE scheme for a sum of Rs.75.00 lakhs on 22.02.20t7. The defendants^{also availed renewal} /^{enhancedlimit i.e., term loan} -I^{of Rs.78.00 lakhs,Term loan-Il of} Rs.71.00 lakhs, FITL of Rs.29.00 lakhs and CC facility of^Rs.9.00lakhs totaling a sum of Rs.1,87,00,000/- and executed^supplemental rantee agreement. It is^pertinent to note that the -.^i.tIf ..;.:;-!fi. \^ apptieant"'f,!trnttotGb.r, a^part satisfaction^memo for a^{sum of} as.'.ez,oq,sii2l- oHiio L.2o2sstating^{that subsequent to filing of} ..,, 07NriU1g *

¶39

' : :,]r."^.+ 'fu*r#

¶40

(oA.No.15 of 2022)

¶41

OA, the subsidy amount was received. So at present, the OA claim is for balance amount due.

¶42

on behalf of appricant bank AW.1 is examined and he exhibited documents Ex.A.1 to A.19. Even though AW.1 is cross examined by the counsel for defendant, nothing is elicited in the cross examination to disprove his testimony. It is admitted that the Appricant bank received Rs.24.35 lakhs as subsidy from central Govt and Rs.61.97 lakhs from the state Government. The Applicant bank stated that the state Government vide letter No.GOI-II/RSES/20l2022-Incentivescol, dated 23.6.2022 has advised that the maximum erigibre subsidy for the unit is Rs.61,97 lakhs and advised to return back in excess of Rs.61.97 lakhs. Accordingly Rs.24.35 lakhs to be returned back to State Government. Hence a part satisfaction memo filed by the Applicant bank for a sum of Rs.62.05 lakhs. The Applicant bank paid CGTMSE fee on 23.02.2022 for a sum f Rs.g3,261l- and the same is applicable to all accounts of defendants. Considering all the circumstances, I hold that the Applicant bank is entitled to claim OA amount against defendants no.1 and 2. So this point is answered

¶43

accordingly./a{ffi

¶44

In thd.re.U,f,?ftf?ffi,, W nal application is allowed with costs as

¶45

(OA.No.15 ot 20221

¶46

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are joinUy and severally liable to pay the Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.2,L7r7l,2o2l- (Rupees Two crores seventeen Lakhs seventy one Thousand Two Hundred and Two only) i.e.,

¶47

a) A sum of Rs.93,23,t091- in respect of term loan-I account with subsequent interest @10. L|o/o p.a from 2t.0L.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶48

b) A sum of Rs.85,36,4171- in respect of term loan-Il account with subsequent interest @10.t5o/o p.a from 21.01 .2022 till the date of realization ;

¶49

c) A sum of Rs.9,81,720/- tn respect of cash credit account with subsequent interest @8.t5o/o p.a from 2L.0L.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶50

d) A sum of Rs.29,29,9481- in respect of term loan-I account with subsequent interest @8.L5o/o p.a from 21.01 .2022 till the date of realization ;

¶51

LESS a sum of Rs.62,04,5721- received as subsidy from State Government.

¶52

the Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against hypothecated rds realization of the debt due. ffi 3 * 07NI:t, *i

¶53

(oA.No.1s of 2022)

¶54

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the^person and^properties of defendant No.2 and^properties of defendant

¶55

no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶56

t4. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶57

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

¶58

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order^{to the parties concerned.}

¶60

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed^{and pronouncedby mein the opencourt on} this the 7th day of Nov,²⁰²⁵⁾

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

o"Y!ffi',

State Bank of India v. M/S. Rojas Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Rojas Industries

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dontalaboina Muthaiah

Maddileti Chikkapalli versus Hdfc Bank

M S Vivimed Labs Limited versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Ramala Elizebeth Josephine

Canara Bank versus Konathala Uday Kiran

Idbi Bank versus Sri. Kotha Himatej Reddy