Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Dhatukaram Industries

DRT16 Jul 2025OA/29/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rupees 43,05,015/- from M/s. Dhatukarm Industries and Mrs. Nirmala Rathod, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable after the bank established its claim under a loan agreement.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 43,05,015/- with interest; Appellant entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties of both defendants for realization; Costs awarded.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dhatukaram Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TR.IBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE l6rHDAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.29 OF 2O2S

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. TS Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Dhatukarm Industries, Represented by its proprietor, Smt Nirmala Rathod, w/o KishanRathod, H.No. 12-50/10, portion no.10, Sy.No.858/3, IDA Medchal, Medchal - Malkajgiri district, TS - 501 401.

¶8

Also at

¶9

H. No.2-18, Marlagonda village, Nirmal, Adilabad, TS _ 504 i03.

¶10

Mrs. Nirmala Rathod, w/o KishanRathod, aged 65 years, occ: business, female,

¶11

H. No.2- 18, Marlagonda village,

¶12

no.10, Medchal, district,

¶13

Defendants

¶14

(oA.29 of 202s)

¶15

Counsel for the Pa rties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶16

SmtTa rang in iPisipati Sri K. Prakash Rao

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of RS.43,OS,OIS/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Five thousand and Fifteen only) with interest @ L4.4Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from 03.01.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed business loan of Rs.100.00 lakhs (Rs.77.00 as term loan and Rs.23 lakhs as cash credit) vide letter of arrangement dated 17.12.2022. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 17.L2.2022. The roan facirities are secured by hypothecation of stocks, book debts, current assets and machinery etc more fuily described in the schedure to oA, After avairing the loan facirity, the

¶20

-.*-Fq:".-

¶21

a.r.i:1:;,'Jdefdr*itp-riqq^{failed to complythe terms of sanction, hence the} ctassiried the account as NpA on 0s.06.2024 and

¶22

fS..^{$ ."fi.</sup> 1 E ffita$2$otice^{was issued on 27.t2.2024.Inspiteof severat requests}}

¶23

t(j 2

¶24

R t" -.rt;',.fi \r,..-t' . -'+.. *t,1Sr,;"".r{'ri;i,/ ' .'ii::p;yj ]i5r .^-.-- -.. .!-=n-

¶25

(oA.29 of z1zs)

¶26

and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence

¶27

this OA.

¶28

3' counsel for defendants filedvakalath but failed to file written Statement.

¶29

sri s. PrathikYadav, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex,A.1 to A.7

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶32

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶33

counsel for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire ws. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the

¶34

is allowed with costs, as under:

¶35

(oA.29 of 202s)

¶36

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.43,O5,OlS/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Five thousand and Fifteen only) with interest @ L4.4oo/o p.a from 03.01.2025 ull the date of realization ;

¶37

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to oA towards realization 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

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

¶41

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 l6thday of July, 2025)

¶44

tr--ffi <br>; 16rrl.m iI dWW
s. ,
". Ijr'
4
fupf,"

¶45

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Dhatukaram Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Dhatukaram 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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sivva Revanth Kumar

Syed Mahmood Mohiuddin versus Union Bank of India

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud versus Canara Bank

T Parthasaradhi versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds

Chethi Rajkumar versus Icici Bank Limited