Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Keerthika Traders

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/290/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's original application against M/s. Keerthika Traders for recovery of Rs. 30,59,867 with future interest, costs, and a direction to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendant's properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 30,59,867 with future interest @12.55% p.a. simple; recovery secured against hypothecated assets; entitlement to proceed against defendant's properties and costs.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 290 OF 2OZ5

¶4

State Bank of India., AMCC Dharmavaram Branch Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Keerthika Traders., Rep by its Proprietor Mrs.K.Shaymala W/o. K.Anil Kumar, Aged 29 years Occ: Business, R/o. B/t584-I, Valmiki Circle, Kalyandurg, Ananthapur Andhra Pradesh - 515761.

¶8

... Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant

¶10

: M/s.A.M.Kiran Kumar

Defendant

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.30,59,867/- from the defendant with future interest @12.55o/o^p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of rearization arong with costs and in defaurt for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 13.06,2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

Ow,*

¶17

oA.NO.290/2025

¶18

J,) The Applicant^{Bank examined M'UdayKumar'Asst' Manager'as} AW-1 and^{marked 05 documents through him as Ex'A'1 to} Ex.A.05.

¶19

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the Applicant Bank'Perused the} material Placed^{on record.}

¶20

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-}

¶21

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendant^{and OA hYPothecated} assets?

¶22

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remainedex-parte' The} Evidence Affidavlt^{coupledwith the recitals in the documents} viz.,Exs.A'ltoA.o5markedonbehalfoftheApplicantBank clinches the^{claimof the Applicant Bank againstthe Defendant'} Hence,IholdthattheDefendantisliabletopaytheoAclaimto the Applicant^{Bank with futureinterest and costs'}

¶23

In the result, the^{present Original Application No'290/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶24

The Defendant is^{liable topay to the}

¶25

i) Applicant Bank a^{sum of Rs.30,59,867/- with} future interest @12.55%^{p.a. simple from the} date of application^{till the date of realization;}

¶26

¶27

ii) the OA claim^{issecured bY way} hypothecation of assets^describedin the sched ule annexedffi*^ and the

¶28

oA.NO.290/202s

¶29

applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶30

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th Day of luly, 2025).

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Keerthika Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Keerthika Traders

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 M/S. Milligram Laboratories

Central Bank of India versus Lachu Cement Bricks Unit

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammed Tahir

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)