Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Guru Harshini Broilers Farm

DRT3 Sept 2025OA/21/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under Section 19 of the DRBA 1993, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for outstanding term loans and GECL. The defendants, who failed to file written statements or adduce evidence, were held jointly and severally liable to pay the dues with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay total sum of Rs.41,90,259/- plus future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets for realization of dues.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Guru Harshini Broilers Farm — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB, (HONS.), M.A, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 27 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India., Pileru Branch, Pileru, Chittoor District. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶7

....Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

M/s.Sri Guru Harshini Broilers Farm.,

¶10

A Proprletary Concern

¶11

Rep by its Proprietrix - Defendant No.2

¶12

Sy.No.427 /7, GVM Nagar M udupu lavem u la Village, Piler Chittoor District - 517214.

¶13

Smt.lv'|. Laksh mi Devi, Wo.M.Venkata Muni Aged about 48 Years, Female

¶14

Occ: Business & Proprietrix of 1st Defendant D.No. 1-31 1/9A, Kadapa Road

¶15

Kava lipa lli Village, Pileru Mandal Chittoor District - 577214. .... Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G.Prabhakar Sarma

¶17

Counsel for Defendants : Mr. M.Ashok Kumar

¶18

:: ORDER ::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.47,90,259/- i.e., a sum ot Rs.27,75,752/- towards Term Loan A/c. No.38415946489 with interest @12.40o/o p.a., a sum

¶20

of Rs.17,34,549/- towards Term Loan A/c. No.39179289170 .l\frn".< .., '- nh. )"

¶21

oa.2112024

¶22

with interest @12.10o/o^{p.a. and a sum of Rs'2,79,958/'} towards GECL^{LoanA/c.No.39519997202with interest@9'25olo} p.a. from the defendants^{together with monthlyrestsfrom the} date of application^{till the date of realisationalong with costs} and sale^{hYPothecated assets.}

¶23

The averments^{of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that} 1st defendant^{proprietary firm representedby its Proprietor2nd} defendant. The^{2nd defendant availedTerm Loansand GECL} Loan Facility from^{the applicant bank vide sanctionletter'The} applicant bank^{issued sanction letter and the 2nd defendant} agreed to the^{terms and conditionsof the sanctionand} executed^{necessaryloan documentsand secured the loan by} way of creating^{hypothecation of assets'After availingloan} facilities, the^{appllcant bank informedthe defendants that their} loans declared as^{NPA' The defendants committed default} desplte several^{demand and failed to regularize the accountsin} spite of^{legal notice dated 22.05.2023.As the defendants failed} to clear the outstanding^{dues, the present OA is filed'}

¶24

Defendants entered^{appearancethrough their counsel} Mr.M.Ashok Kumar,^{but they dld not choose to file written} statement. Accordingly,^{defendants right of filingwritten} statement has^{been forfeitedvide docket order dated} 04.t0.2024.

¶25

The Applicant^{BankexaminedKSR ChandraMurthy'Legal} Manager as^{AW-1 and marked18 documentsthrough him as} Ex. A.1 to Ex.^A.18.

¶26

Defendants^{rightof adducingevidence was forfeitedfor several} adjournments^{vide docket order dated zg'07 '2o25//y Yv^4} Lv'5;''

¶27

oa- 2a12024

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant stated orders may be^passed on merits. Defendants' right of advancing arguments forfeited on 13.08.2025. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶30

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶31

According to the applicant bank, after availing loan facilities, the defendants committed default in repayment despite notice. Hence applicant bank is entitled to the OA claim considering the documents exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.18 through AW.1 and the recitals therein.

¶32

As stated supra. though defendants entered appearance through their counsel, they did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Accordingly, their right was forfeited. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs.A. 1 to A.18 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the applicant bank with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Application No.2112024 is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.41,90,259/- i.e., a sum of Rs.2L,75,752/- towards Term Loan ,,i)\r,u / 7.,'^ \q^)''

¶35

oA.2tl2O24

¶36

A/c.No.38415946489, a sum of Rs.17,34,549/- towards^TermLoan A/c.No.39179289t70 and a sum^of Rs.2,79,958/- towards GECL^Loan A/c.No.39519997202; with^{future interest} @12.15o/o^{p.a. simple from the date of} application till the date^{of realization;}

¶37

ii) the OA claim is secured^{bY way of} hypothecated assets described^inthe schedule annexed to the^{OA andthe} applicant bank is entitled^{to proceed against} the same to realise its debt;

¶38

iii) the applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceed} against the^person and^{properties of} defendants for^{realization of its dues;} iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶39

ll.TheApplicantBankisdirectedtofi|eCostMemowithin2weeks from the date of^{receipt of this Order.}

¶40

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly.}

¶41

13'Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in Web^Portal.

¶42

(Dictated to the steno,^{signed and pronouncedby mein the open courton this the 03'd} day of september, 2025.)

¶43

..^.r/n ,_, ^c, ./'---'',\q.L\t^' (R*MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Guru Harshini Broilers Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Guru Harshini Broilers Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

vishnu kumar c versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Ms. Mohini Jain

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mahalaxmi Agencies

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Lgas Labs Private Limited

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Gutti Balaji