Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Raghavendra Traders

DRT7 Aug 2025OA/199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery dues against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor who had defaulted on a secured loan facility.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,44,26,613/- plus interest @10.95% p.a., costs, and permission to proceed against mortgaged properties and assets.

State Bank of India versus Sri Raghavendra Traders — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs THE 7rH DAy oF AUGusT, 2o2s

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.199 of ZO2S

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SRB-II, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Raghavendra Traders, Represented by its^proprietor,

¶10

H. No. L2-57 6/ 1, Islampur, Road no.1, Mancherial,

¶11

Telangana - 504 208,

¶12

Mr. Ravikanti Ashok, s/o Kishtaia hRavikanth, aged 48 years, male,

¶13

H. No. t2-57 6/ 1, Islampur, Opp Sri Harsha degree college, Road no.1, Mancherial, Telangana - 504 208.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for th

¶16

For the For the ffi'B E j .,tauut|J4J otAut'ew^* rra

¶17

Sri C. Prabhakar Exparte

W*@?

(oA.199 of 202s)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.L,44,26,613/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen only) with further interest @ 10.95olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged^property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant no.1 is a Proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed Drop line limit of Rs.1.50 Croresvide letter of arrangement dated 29.10.2022. To secure the due repayment of loan amount, the defendants executed agreed of loan cum hypothecation & guarantee agreement. Defendants mortgaged the schedule mentioned^property and deposited the title deeds in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 08.12.2024 and issued led^{09.04.2025.Inspite of severalrequests} and d ts did not clear the outstanding. Hence tlp u th ls A. ;t,A 7 NJE NE 3. nts called a bse r1.! exparte on 08.07.2025. I :.. .: .. ,.^{i'.r,:. :-,_ - . ,',.:} '.;^i'i r -1 .':.^-:',.

¶23

(oA.199 of 202s)

¶24

Sri D. Naga Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A. 15.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel For the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶28

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.L,44,26,6L3/- (Rupees One Crore Forty

¶29

Four La -Twenty^{Six ThousandSix Hundred and Thirteen} ftrrtherlinterest @ 10.95olo p.a from date of filing of OA '1 s. \ir

¶30

*t#,n" ou&,.""i

¶31

ii 0l i1lt1 ?fG * '#?

¶32

w*,.#

¶33

(oA.199 of 202s)

¶34

The Applicant Bank is entiUed to proceed against thehypothecated and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due;

¶35

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7tr day of Aug, 2025)

¶41

sdl - (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

ffirr-<br>J , ,a r nttc 2ff2s -.
t%* ..9
W-t-*-q

¶43

TRUE^GOPY Asst.^Re o#li.i6-uxoto''

State Bank of India v. Sri Raghavendra Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Raghavendra Traders

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

Mohd Salahuddin Mukarram versus M/S Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/S. Boddam Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mrs. Thala Mamatha

State Bank of India versus M/S.Sree Sainath Engineerings Works

State Bank of India versus Sri. Akash Kumar Sonker

State Bank of India versus M/S. Claps Oil Tech Pvt. Ltd.