Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ahmed Rickshaw and Cycle Parts

DRT8 Sept 2025OA/283/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor. The court found the defendants liable for a loan amount along with interest and costs, dismissing their claim that the loan was fully repaid.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.26,68,672/- with interest @12.09% p.a. Entitled to proceed against hypothecated property and realization of debt.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ahmed Rickshaw and Cycle Parts — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8IH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.283 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Ahmed Rickshaw and Cycle parts, Represented by its Proprietor, Mohammed Ahmed, D.No.15-9-214/2, Feel Khana, Maharjgunj, Hyderabad -^{500 012.}

¶10

2, Sri Mohammed Ahmed, Aged major, male, D.No.15-9-214/2, Feel Khana, Maharjgunj, Hyderabad - 500 012.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant : Sri C. Sreedhar

¶14

Defenda nts : Smt V. Babitha

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1,.e.*',',f.&']fti the present OA against Defendants for Rs.26,68,672l- (Rupees Twenty Six

¶17

(oA. No.283/2023)

¶18

Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy^Two onty) (Rs.23,71,102/- + Rs.2,15,178l- + Rs.82,392l-)^with further interest @ 12.09olo^p.a with monthly rests from^{date of filing} of OA till the date of realization and in default^{for sale of} hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to^OA;

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the^{ApplicantBank} states that the defendant no.l is a Proprietorship firm^{representedby} its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed CC limit of^{Rs'5.00 lakhs vide} letter of arrangement dated 19.12.2015 and^{executed agreement of} loan cum hypothecation and^guarantee agreement.^{The defendants} availed the enhanced limit of Rs.15.00^lakhs on^{11.01.2017 and later} to Rs.20.00 lakhs on 24.01.2017. It is^submitted by^{the Applicant} bank that the Defendant has availed^{the said loan facilities and failed} to keep up the repayment schedule, as such^{the accountwas classified} as NPA on 22.03.2023. Inspite of demands^{made by Applicant the} defendants have not regularized the account,^{and the Applicantbank} issued legal notice dated 04.10.2023, but the^defendants did^not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of^{Applicant against} defendants is of Rs.26,68,672/-^(Rupees Twenty Six^{Lakhs Sixty} Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Seventi Two only) (Rs.23,71,102/- + Rs.2,15,178l- + Rs.82/3921-) with further -^- :-.:_:-l-interest @ l?.O-i[qr&arfu\4u," of filins of oA till^{the date of} re a r i z a t i o n":'j::Hl ;"]E ;.$

¶20

,:,,.'-.n), (ft',,..-,.,til s;h

¶21

(OA.No.283/2023)

¶22

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that the defendants fully repaid the loan amount to the applicant with full interest according to terms and conditions. It is contended that the defendants paid 1B EMIs and states that no serious defaults. It is further submitted that the defendants made part payments of Rs.48,000/- on 04.10.2023 and Rs.13,500/- on 08.03.2022 and stated that the allegations of the applicant bank are absolutely false and baseless. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and exhibited documents B.L to 8.4.

¶23

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶24

Heard the arguments.

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶27

ii) To what relief ?

¶28

Point No.i):

¶29

Sri Govind ggjgffirefiHead/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the npprffit-crEiw iidfr+i& about the liability of the defendants. i,i,r''^{E')?</sup> ir I^08sEP20,. W,t--,#}

¶30

(OA.No.283/2023)

¶31

Exhibits A.1to A.16 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶32

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents, hence his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant no.2 having taken the plea that they made some part payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶33

Point No.ii)

¶34

resent Original application is allowed with costs as 'r^{,The DefendantsE} tly and severally liable to pay to Applicant ;rffi-.5 ir'*uno0u0,[Ff, Et 26,68,672/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs

¶35

(oA. No.283/2023)

¶36

Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Two only) (Rs.23,71,102/- + Rs.2,15,179l- + Rs.g2,3g2/-) with fu rther interest @ 12.09% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated schedule property as'mentioned in the OA towards realisation of the debt due;

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶41

13, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of Sept'2025)

¶44

ffts<br>i ossrp2ozs I
fu.**f.*9

¶45

4*frds,e{7'
rr.rt r. H Y,:!5ii3 s/lto.

¶46

sd/-

¶47

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ahmed Rickshaw and Cycle Parts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ahmed Rickshaw and Cycle Parts

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

Erumall Arlappa versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Ms Vishal Saree Center versus Dcb Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav

Ms Sr Agro Export India Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Venkateshwara Rice Traders

Sri Sai Poultry versus Indian Overseas Bank