Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Anu Enterprises

DRT17 Dec 2025OA/246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India against a proprietorship firm and its guarantor. The court upheld the bank's claim for recovery of outstanding dues totaling approximately Rs. 1 crore, with future interest, and authorized proceeds against hypothecated movables.

What did the court decide?

The bank was ordered to recover Rs. 1,09,72,933 with future interest and was empowered to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anu Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17Ih DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SRt GUMMAD| GOPICHAND, pREStDtNc OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 246 OF 2O2S

¶3

Between:
State Bankoflndia, SARB-il,Chikkadapaily, Hyderabad
Represented by itsChief Manager Applicant
VERSUS
1.M/sAnuEnterprises,
Rep. by itsProprietorMrsAkula AnushaNaidu Unit No.3038, SecondFloor, Ashoka OneMall, H.No.5-7-72, Sy. No.118, Near Pillar835,
Moosapet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-SOOOl2.
2.MrsAkulaAnushaNaidu, Wo.Mr. N. Sharath,
Occ. Business,
R/o.H.No. 37-18t12t102,
Plot No.124,SreeResidency, Defence Colony,
Sainikpuri, Hyderabad,Telangana Defendants
I

¶4

(OA. No.246/2o2sl

¶5

Counsel for the parties :

¶6

For The Appticant A. M. Kiran Kumar For the Defendants A. Pavan Kumaryadav Reserved on 11.12.2025 Pronounced on 17.12.2025 Upload in website on 17.12.2025

¶7

ORDER

¶8

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,0g,72,g33/- (Rupees One Crores Eight Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Three Only) with future interest @ 12.15o/o p'a with monthry rests from 26.05.2025 ti, the date of rearization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedute of property to OA.

¶9

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states No 1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its ]-T*r:n-t lt^{*o 2 avaitedCash credit of Rs.2.00 Lakhs} and of Rs.98.00 Lakhs repayabte in 64 executed Agreement of Loan cum 17 lEc M 2

¶10

(oA. No. 246/20251

¶11

Hypothecation dated OSlr}.2OZ3 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendant no. 2 stood as a guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 05.10.2023 in favor of the 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 03.11.2024 and issued Legal notice dated 06.05.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶12

sri A. Pavan Kumar yadav fired vakarat on beharf of Defendants No. 1 and 2. Even after the lapse of 45 Days WS of Defendants No.1 and 2 not filed and hence the right of fiting of WS of Defendants No. 'l and 2 forfeited on 09.09.2025.

¶13

Sri. B. Ramakrishna prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10.

¶14

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶15

consideration is whether the Applicant claim made in the OA against the

¶16

(oA. No. 246l202s)

¶17

Defendants no. 1 and 2 did not fire their ws even after avairing sufficient time and hence the right of firing of ws of Defendants No. 1 and 2 forfeited. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.10. rn 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 entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶18

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶19

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,0g,72,g33/_ (Rupees One Crores Eight Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Three Only) with future interest @ 12.15o/o p.a from 26.05.2025 tilt the date of realization.

¶20

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables mentioned in the Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶21

k is also entifled to proceed against the person

¶22

'.. phd prr fendants No. 2 and properties of Defendant

¶23

{i^{*ruo. rii} rds of the debt due. j 1t nn 4

¶24

(oA. No.246/2o2sl

¶25

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the oA.

¶26

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

¶27

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶29

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

¶30

sd/-
(c. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

n
r\u+ cotY
Registrar ' '
-)f\r,'--
sf.,-i iivaERABAO,

State Bank of India v. M/S. Anu Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Anu 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

Union Bank of India versus Sri Sridevi Vignatha Granites

Ms Vamsi Furniture World versus State Bank of India

Sri Elapolu Vara Prasad versus State Bank of India

Trinetra Jewellers versus Canara Bank

Pokkili Murali Kalyan versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Pingili Prathik Reddy