Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Eco Solutions

DRT3 Sept 2025OA/204/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No. 204 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application against ECO Solutions and Mrs. Aavula Nalini. After an ex-parte hearing where the bank established its claim via witness examination and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted recovery of the principal sum, interest, and costs, along with authority to proceed against hypothecated and other properti

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed with costs. Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 49,55,992/ plus interest. Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated property and other assets. Recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 3RD DAy OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2O4 of 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets recovery branch-II, (SARB-II), H. No. 1-B-s63/1, RTC X roads, Opp Sandhya theatre, 1st floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 20. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. ECO Solutions, Represented by its Proprietrix, Smt Aavula Nalini, Plot no.450, Srinagar colony, Sri Sainatha Real Estate, Rampally village, Keesara Mandal, Hyderabad - 501 301.

¶9

Mrs. Aavula Nalini,

¶10

w/o Aavula Narasimha Raju, flat no,501, 5th floor, Haneesh

¶11

Pride Apartment, Radha Nagar Colony, Road No.7, KK Convention

¶12

Hall, Bandlaguda Jagir, Rajendranagar,

¶13

Ranga reddy district - 500 086.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel For the Parties:

¶16

For the Applicant lu ri Krishnam Raju
For the Defendants
,.#' ', SL :.y. rt, -o o 3 stP 296 *oE JI *

¶17

(OA.No.204 of 2025)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,55,992l- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and ninety Two only) along with interest @ 12.15olo p.a with monthly rests from 25.04.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.L is proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.36.80 lakhs and cash credit of Rs.8.00 lakhs aggregating a sum of Rs.44.80 lakhs. The defendants executed letter of arrangement, agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 02.05.2024 and also hypothecated the goods 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 13.01.2025 and demand notice was issued on 15.01.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

-G;}.exparte on 18.07.2025.
Defendants .1K-effi .,ch.<br>$- B'<br>ii;.: 0 3 St,P ?!15 .,+ii
: rT'- -.. -: l'
'.i -{ ..'!!.1lr.':,. ',;-1 'l:.... :.2' ,'
,..
., . i,. .:.'1 ,
''_:--l ,'.-... , .".,:',

¶22

¶23

(OA.No.2O+ of 2025)

¶24

Sri B. Rama Krishna prasad, Chief Manager of the Appticant Bank

¶25

examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which

¶26

are marked as Ex.A. I to A,7.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶29

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶30

prayed for?

¶31

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.7. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is enti'ed to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶32

B. In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinry and severary riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.49,55 ,gg]-/_ (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and ninety Two onry) arong with interest if^{p.a from 2s.04.202s} tiil the date of

¶33

-o fJ^{o 3 srP} zuzs

¶34

(OA.No.204 of 20251

¶35

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realisation of the debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶38

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶40

L4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3d day of Sept, 2025)

¶42

sd/ -

¶43

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

d"uw

¶45

DRT.I,^HYDERAAAD.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Eco Solutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Eco Solutions

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. Khammampati Seenaiah

State Bank of India versus M/S.Vamsi Filling Station

Sri Sandrapalli Venkata Bipin Kumar versus Indian Bank

Indian Bank versus M/S. Saltha Santhaya Transport

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Praveen Sultana

Vaddalapu Rammohan versus State Bank of India