Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Brahmosthava Industries

DRT5 Aug 2025OA/233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery of a loan facility totaling a disputed amount with interest, the Tribunal examined the bank's claim. Finding that the bank established its case through documentary evidence while the defendants remained in ex parte, the Tribunal held the bank entitled to recover the sum and proceeded against hypothecated movables and properties.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendants to pay Rs. 36,82,586/- with interest; allowed sale of hypothecated movables and proceedings against properties; issued recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Brahmosthava Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.233 OF 2025

¶5

Between;

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-II, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC X roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 020. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Brahmosthava Industries, Represented by the proprietor Bonkuri Srikanth, Sy.no. 186/1, t86/ A/ t, Bhoopathipuram, Sultanabad, Karimnagar, TS - 505 525.

¶10

Mr. BonkuriSrikanth (borrower) s/o Permaiah, aged 33 years, occ:business, and proprietor of Brahmosthava Industries, R/o 4-39, Kasulapally, Peddapallymandal, Peddhapally, TS - 505 187.

¶11

Also at

¶12

Sy.No. 186/1, tB6/A/t, Bhoopathipuram, Sultana bad, Karimnagar, TS - 505 525.

¶13

Mr. BonkuriLaxmaiah (guarantor; s/o Narsaiah, aged 55 years, occ: PSU employee (SCCL) R/o 4-39, Kasulapally, Pedda Peddhapally, TS - 505 187.

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant

¶16

For the Defendants

¶17

Irlt tffi ndants^W*t" Sri tDiva ka r Expa rte

¶18

(oA. No.233/202s )

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.36,82,5g6/- (Rupees Thirty six Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only) with further interest @ 12.40o/o p.awith monthly rests and penal interest @ 5olo p.a from 25.11.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary firm for which defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor availed term loan of Rs.45.00 lakhs and cash credit of Rs.5.00 lakhs totaling a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs on 26.09.2022. The defendant no.2 hypothecated the plant and machinery and executed hypothecation agreement dated 26.09.2022 and defendant no,3 executed guarantee agreement dated 26.09.2022. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 0g.11.2024 and notice was issued ?5.^{inspite of several requests and} demands, the r the outstanding. Hence this ,.ts oA. * 05HJC2m 3. Defendants set exparte on 09.07.2025. vEg{{

¶22

(oA. No.233/202s)

¶23

Sri B. Rama Krishna prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

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?

¶26

Defendants 1 to 3 remainedexparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to A.12. 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.

¶27

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants No.1 to 3 are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.36,82,5A6/- (Rupees Thirty six Lakhs Eaghty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six

¶28

only) with 7't {rEr.. tr r( 12.4oo/o p.a from 25.11.2024ti11 the
4\ ts'
date of &ation; ei
j osrueaps :
-J,tI}- ,.
qh,rdy

¶29

(OA. No.233/202s)

¶30

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecated

¶31

movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards rea lization of

¶32

the debt due.

¶33

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶34

and properties of defendant No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

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

¶36

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶37

of receipt of order.

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned. by her, corrected, siened and pronounced by me in the open courr on

¶40

Iflfti#i,I"^jli :;id.:l'frrt)".

¶41

sd/-

¶42

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶43

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

d.
0 5 ['r:i] 2m

¶45

TRUE^COPV ,"1i''ffitv

State Bank of India v. Mr. Brahmosthava Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Brahmosthava 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 Miss Kurrapati Swarna Latha

Mrs Harriet Francis Dass versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

C Rama Devi versus Apsfc

Canara Bank versus M/S. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry

Uco Bank versus Smt. Pulimamidi Kavitha

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Mln Industries Private Limited