Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Eco Nacher

DRT15 Dec 2025OA/303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the Applicant Bank for recovery of dues. The court found defendants liable to pay the principal amount along with interest and penal charges based on documentary evidence and allowed the bank to enforce security and pursue recovery against properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.36,29,834/- with interest; bank permitted to sell hypothecated property and proceed against assets of parties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Eco Nacher — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 15rH DAy OF DECEMBE& 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.3O3 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II (SARB-II) first floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkad pal ly, Hydera bad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. ECO Nacher,

¶10

Represented by its^pro Md Nazma, #2-24-9L/B/ A, Laxmi nagar Colony, Uppal Industrial Area, Medchal- Malkajgiri,

¶11

TS - s00 039.

¶12

Sri Md. Nazma, w/o Md Pasha, aged 30 years R/o # 11-13-523/NR,

¶13

Road no.6/A, Yadav nagar,

¶14

L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy Telangana - 500 074.

¶15

Also at:

¶16

#3-15, Rachalapalli, Mahabubnagar, Medchal, Telangana - 509 320.

¶17

ffi
ffi'?

¶18

Also at:

¶19

Plot no.53, Road no.3, Yadav nagar, Alkapuri, Hyderabad, Rangareddy, TS - s00 035.

¶20

(oA.No.303/2024)

¶21

CounselfortheParties:
FortheApplicant	SriM.VenkatDivakar
Defendants	SriV.V.Ramana
Orders reservedon	Lt.t2.2025
Pronouncedon	t5.t2.2025
Uploadedin websiteon	t5.L2.2025

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.36,29,g34l- (Rupees Thifi Six Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty four only) i.e.,

¶24

i) a sum of Rs.3,21,852/- under loan A/c.No.4234242gL5t with further interest @ L2.4Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from L2.07.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶25

ii)a sum of Rs.33,07,982/- under Loan A/c.No.4t94167L452 with further interest @ l2.4oo/o p.a with monthly rests and @ 2o/o p.a penal interest from 12.07.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶26

and in default for sale of hypothecated property as mentioned in the schedule to OA,

¶27

As per the a application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant t'lo.,i-ts a Fft ry concern represented by - .,:) its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed it loan of Rs.3.0Olakhs and term toan or ns.so,lo1.0rfrt ffit,,"; m of Rs.33.00 lakhs on

¶28

(oA.No.303/2024)

¶29

77 .05.2023. The defendant no. t hypothecated stocks, receivables and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated L7.05.2023. The defendants agreed to repay the cash credit roan in g1 monthry installments of Rs.55,OOO/- each with first installment from 29.08.2023. It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants availed the said roan facirities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was crassified as NpA on 09.04.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 18.04.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.36,29,834/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty four onty) with interest @ L2.400/o p.a and 20/o p.a penar interest respectivery with monthry rests from 12.07.2024 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶30

The DefendantNo.l fired written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendant denied the hypothecation of stock and execution of Agreement of roan cum hypothecation. It is contended that the loan accounts migrated to SARB_II, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and the defendants were regurar in repayment of roan amount in EMIs till April 2024. the Applicant bank classified the loan accou any prior notice which is in violation of RBI Sui{etrn€-sr Flqnce ed for dismissal of OA.

¶31

¶32

(OA.No.303/2024)

¶33

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

4. Heard the arguments.

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶36

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

¶37

ii) To what relief ?

¶38

Point No.i):

¶39

smt M. sarala, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on beharf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhitiits A.1 to A.5 are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.2 examined herself as DW.1 and Ex.B.1 and 8.2 are marked.

¶40

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 2nd defendant examined herserf as DW,1 and fired Ex.B.1 and B.2, so her evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendants having taken the prea that the appricant bank did not foilow the RBI guiderines and that the present oA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantiar proof to that ,^{a perusal} of the documents exhibited i:..{:.ll S by the Appticant ba.d* ma :i 1" r that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants iru_1 : r:i li,ris normal course of transaction. The defendants ,. very vaguety con$ that particulars made in the OA .:i. *-Q..Y ',..- .r:-I-+*r,,,:.+fXS ,,,.i i;;;.^:'

¶41

(oA.No.303/202a)

¶42

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.

¶43

Poant No.ai)

¶44

In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶45

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.36,29,g341- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty four only) i.e., i) a sum of Rs.3,21,852/- under loan A/c.No.42342428L5L with further interest @ t2.4oo/o p.a from t2.07.2024 till the date of realization;

¶46

iii) a sum of Rs.33,07,982/- under Loan A/c,No.4L94167t452 with further interest @ L2.40o/o p.a from 12.07.2024 till the date of realization;

¶47

9. The Appli entitled to proceed against the hypothecated pro OA towards realisation of the debt due; 1 5 DEC ?ffr

¶48

(OA.No.303/2024)

¶49

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.

¶50

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

¶51

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶52

13, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15d day of Dec, 2025)

¶55

sd/-

¶56

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

i7\,
,o,1,ffi[iiroo.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Eco Nacher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Eco Nacher

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Agro Industries

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Mohammed Abdul Baseer

Katta Raj Vinay Kumar versus State Bank of India

G Aditya versus India Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Markonda Naidu Prathapaneni versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sri Sai Granite Exports