Allowed

State Bank of India v. Swastik Enterprises

DRT9 Sept 2025OA/240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OA allowed. DRT allowed State Bank of India's application for recovery of outstanding loan from M/s. Swastik Enterprises and proprietress Mrs. Uma Jhawar, highlighting joint and several liability and entitlement to proceed against hypothecated movables.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 58,48,389/- with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables, respondent-2's person and properties, and respond

State Bank of India versus Swastik Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE^grH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

OA.No.24O ot 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery b ra nch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Swastik Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, Mrs. Uma Jhawar, W/o Rahul Rathi, office at 14-7-56, Shankar Bazar, Chudibazar, Hyderabad - 500 012

¶11

Also at

¶12

R/o 14-1-162, Sitarampet, Begum bazar, Hyderabad -500 012.

¶13

Mrs. Uma Jhawar, s/o Rahul Rathi, aged about

¶14

32 years, occ: business, female, R/o 14-1-162, sitarampet, Begumbazar, Hyderabad - 500 012.

¶15

Also at:

¶16

office at 14-7-56, Shankar Bazar, Chudibazar, Hyderabad - soo 0t.76ffi Defendants Counsel for the Parties: j^/.S .S - 'tttr$r^ ffi arangini Pisipati For the Appticant o' *l manjaneyulu For the Defendants :fl ..1 0 I 5gp, -' L.,k'2p5 Sri{ 7lt 1$a .q 1e,,r

¶17

(oA.240 of 202s)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.58,48,389/-^{(Rupees Fifty Eight} Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Three^{Hundredand Eighty Nine} only) with interest @ 13.90o/o^{p.a with monthly rests from 6.05.2025} 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 Bankstates that} defendant No.1 is a^{proprietorship} firm^{represented by its proprietor/} defendant no.2 availed loan of^Rs.53 lakhs^{as cash credit vide letter} of arrangement dated 29.tO.2021. The defendants^executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and^{guarantee agreement. The} loan facilities were secured by hypothecation of receivables,^stocks, book debts, current assets and machinery^more fully^{describedin the} schedule to OA. After availlng the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.12.2024 and recall notice was issued on 20.05.2025. Inspite ofseveral requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Counsel for lath but failed to file Written statement 0gs[Prfi

¶22

(oA.240 of 202s)

¶23

Smt K. Geeta Lakshmi, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶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 remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A. 13. 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 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.58,48,3891- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Nine only) with

¶28

interest @ 13. .a from 6.05.2025 till the date of realization.

¶29

i*
,?. 09stPm
(&-,",",*i.*t

¶30

\OA.24O^{of 20251}

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

13, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of Sept, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

iii,.'
fii ,a&,^
(f-
u * 09 sf; M*
rd
.3
,d-\gL, ,.s4+11
"s"d;

¶42

0-w
DRI-;, !Jyilrl?-486C

¶43

State Bank of India v. Swastik Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Swastik Enterprises

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Venkateshwara Rice Traders

Sri Sai Poultry versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kareem Syed versus Unity Small Finance Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Venkateswara Emu Farm

State Bank of India versus S. Abhinay Kumar Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sevalal Industry