Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mana Telangana Mart

DRT17 Sept 2025OA/242/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 81,41,519/ along with interest and costs against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Defendants to repay Rs. 81,41,519/- with interest at 11.90% p.a., allowing sale of hypothecated movables, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mana Telangana Mart — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.242 ol 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Ramalayam street branch, Main road, Mulugu, Mulugu district, Telangana

¶7

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Mana Telangana Mart, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Bawothu Jail Singh, H.No.6-37, C/o Thippani Koteshwar, main road,

¶11

Mulugu - 506 343.

¶12

Mulugu mandal and district.

¶13

Mr. Bawothu Jail Singh, s/o Sri Samya Naik, aged about 40 years, male, occ: business & proprietor of defendant no.1.

¶14

H.No.10-413, Jawahar nagar village, Machapur post, Mulugu - 506 344.

Defendants

Counsel for the

For the Ap

For the

Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma Exparte

ltstp

(OA.242 of 202s)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.81r41r519/-(Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen only) (Rs.32r54J3gl- +Rs.48r86,780/ -) with interest @ 11.90o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA;

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that

¶25

defendant No.1 represented by its proprietor 2nd defendant availed
cash credit of Rs.30.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.55.00 lakhs (overall
facilities of Rs.85.00 lakhs) vide letter of arrangement dated
L8.07.2022. Defendant no.2 guaranteed the due repayment of loan
amount on 13.03.2024 and executed guarantee agreement dated
13.03.2024. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to
comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classifieO ine
account as NPA on 31.03.2025 and legal notice was issued on
L7.04.2025. Inspite of several requests and O"rnunOr, the defendants
did not clear the outstapding. Hence this OA.
,:rrr,.f.l'*IU.
..,.1.:'. t;: ,'.:;" lj,*YryR
','"#" beteh$la;tthihd absent and set exparte on 21.08.2025.
i , iii-"
&il sYs t&'r;;F ti " r
..',' *'
iii=-, lz-sEPM oil
t;':.-+ "} i
\i.;i'*S. ,. i,l'
\,,;".\ .c-h-$--.. 2
'
\ii"";. irTirro6li.i^l]:;,,'
';;,, - ti-r. ".i' ':"''":'
o._-. , r.,

¶26

(oA.242 ot 207sl

¶27

Sri Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.26.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

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

¶30

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.26. 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.

¶31

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.81,41,519/-(Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Nineteen only)

¶32

efdR.S:YZ."#,7391-^{+Rs.48,86,78Ol-) with interest@ 11.90o/op.a}

¶33

t'- t',..:-'t ':;'-r' .i.. s rro,aate'o$a]iipJication till the date of realization, :, ji",: t1 ^"..r. Y,i) ','"-\ \

¶34

i.- 1 7
r ':',

¶35

' :'i'

¶36

(Oe.zqz of 2025)2025)

¶37

9, Ihe Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed (Oe.zqz of 2025)2025) against the

¶38

movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards hypothecated

¶39

the debt due. realization of

¶40

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

¶41

11' The Appricant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶42

72' The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from of receipt of order,

¶43

the date

¶44

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of Sept, 2025)

¶47

¶48

sd/-

¶49

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

QRT./, 'JYSE&AEfi

¶51

,flre

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mana Telangana Mart

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mana Telangana Mart

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

Paruchuri Vidya Sagar versus Dcb Bank Limited

Ms Sai Srinivasa Mechanical Works Rep by Vemula Srinivasa Rao versus Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

State Bank of India versus Mr. Sriram Saketh

State Bank of India versus Ss Paper Plates

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ar Enterprise

Amit Bajaj and another versus Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd.