Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Durga Enterprises

DRT5 Dec 2025OA/348/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of a loan default of approximately Rs. 96.99 lakhs. The court rejected the defendants' defense as untenable, ordered repayment of the principal and interest, and authorized proceedings against the hypothecated property.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are ordered to pay Rs. 96,99,770/- with interest; a Recovery Certificate is issued; the bank can sell the hypothecated property.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Durga Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE srH DAy OF DECEMBE& 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPIGHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.348 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sri Durga Enterprises, A proprietary concern, Represented by its^proprietor Sri Bobba Anirudh-the defendant No.2 herein Flat no.205, Megha Sai Towers, KK Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶10

¶11

Plot no.B-17lA, TSIIC, IALA, Moula Ali, Hyderabad - 500 045,

¶12

Sri Bobba Anirudh,
S/o Sri Bobba Rambabu,
Aged about 26 years,
Occ: business &
Of defendant no.1.
Flat no.205, r'a"gnu siifi*"[i
KK Nagar, Nachdiam, S q
Hyderabad - s:0 Defendants
%4ss r:ttc /ffi

¶13

(OA.No.348/2024)

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma Defendants Sri K. Karthik Chaitanya Orders reserved on 07.tL.2025 Pronounced on 05.L2.2025 Uploaded in website on 06.L2.202s

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.96,99,77Ol- (Rupees Ninety Six Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy only) i.e.,

¶18

i) a sum of Rs.69,22,333/- with interest @ 13.40olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶19

ii) a sum of Rs.27,77,437l- with interest @ l4.2|o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶20

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

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a^proprietary concern represented by t no.2 availed term loan of Rs.75 lakhs and lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated payment of said Overall loan facilities, 31.0r.2022i ilfC.flfi'" ent of loan cum hypothecation (SME-

¶22

{f* 9[31090^!' [{" 'Vffi tess!ul€;p .rog pelerd e_ o1 sluau^ed ;M 6B {o, *joi lelluplsqns apeu^quppueJep aql leql pepueluol requnJ sl lI^{.pe^elep} seM luaui^edeJ eql os^,ssarlstp lptoueuu pue sa6uallpq3 ssautsnq ueasaroJun ol enp bZ1Z^,laqopA ug paddols I.ou luepueJap 1o fuope1 ur suorlelado aql leql paplLuqns sl tI 'sau;;ap;n6 IgU Jo uotlelot^ u! sr qllqM ecrlou .ror.rd iue Eurruas lnoqllM VdN se lunof,f,e upol aql peutssplf, >1ueq luec;;ddv aql leql papuetuoo sl lI .VO ut apeu sluaruJa^p aql paluep pue luaujelels ueDuM palu sluepueJao aql .z

¶23

'VO eql elueH^.uotlpztleer Jo alep aql llll uorlec;;dde Jo alep rloJJ slsal Igqluor-u q1;m llan;pedsal e.d o/oSZ.bl pue e.d %Or.EI O lseralut LlltM (Aluo {luaaes pue paJpunH uanas puesnoql aulN Alaugp sq{el x;g lleu;p saedng) -lOtL,66,g6.sU Jo sl sluepualap lsure6e luecr;ddyJo ujtelo lelol aq1^.aups aLll Aedal o1 preMtoJ aLuof, tou^{plp quepueJap} aql lnq^,VZOZ.LO.gO palep ac;1ou 1e6a; panssr lueq luecrgddv aql^{pue ,lunof,f,e} aq1 pazr.re;n6el lou aleq stuepualap aq1 1uec1lddy Aq apeu spueuJap Jo alldsul .VdN se peutsselo sem lunof,3e eql^qlns se^,a;npaqos luauleda.r aq1 dn daal o1 pelleJ pup salllllleJ ueol ptes aql pelte^e quepuaJeq arll leql )ueq luecllddv aql Iq pepuqns st lI^.)ueq luecr;dde Jo rno^eJ u! VO ol alnpeqos eql u! peuotluar! se fuaurqceu pue s)lols aql peleleqlodlq sluepuelap eql 'ZZ0Z'lO'TE uo stunoue upol Jo tuauleda: anp eqt paalue.ren6 pue (7

¶24

(rzozl8rt'oN Vo)

¶25

luaurelels eql Jed se lng 'peJrof, l'ogtrIturrr'fl leLll^papueluoo llan6e^ fuan sluepu PSU eJl -:lO nof, I leulrou^{aql ut sluepueJap} aql Iq palnla eql lle leql^Jealf, sa)eu, lueq lueo;lddV aql ,(q aurnf,op eql Jo ;esnrad^e 'lanoalol4^.paJJe leql o1 3oo.rd letluelsqns lue ace;d ol palleJ 'uorlelrut; {q paleq spm VO guesald aql teql pue sautlaptn6 tgu arll MolloJ lou plp )ueq 1uec11dde eql lpql eald aq1 ua1e1 6ulneq sluepueJap eqJ_^'tulq ol Jnldlaq Aelrou ur st af,ueptle stq os ,sluauncop Iue palg lou ppq aq pue I.MC sp JlasLulq poutulexa luepueJap puZ eUl q6noq1 ua^f 'sluepueJep aql {q paurtuexa ssorf, lou seM I.l V .L

¶26

.sluatunoop lue palg lou lnq I.MO se JleslrJlq paultlexe Z'oN luepuaJaq^.I'l V r.l6nolql palJpr! are II.V ol I.V sllqlqx3 'stuppueJap eql Jo {ttttqett eql tnoqe pasodap lpealc luec;lddy aql Jo Jleqeq uo pau!upxe spM oqM 1.14y [a6eue6 ,lepurne6 .6 r.rg .9

¶27

:(;.o1r1 1u;o6

¶28

e Jallar leqm oI ([

¶29

a^sluepueJep aq1 1su1e6e

¶30

VO^{ul epeui} se ulelf, s1r penold seq )ueg luecllddv aq1 .reqqeq6 (;

¶31

:aJe uorleJaplsuof JoJ astJe leql slurod aq1 ,arop .S

¶32

'sluaun6le aql pJeaH .V

¶33

'pJof,al uo paceld slueulnoop aql pasn.red aneq 1 .E

.,.

(rzozl8r€ oN'vo)

(OA.No.348/2024)

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 entifled to claim the oA amount from defendants. Therefore, the oA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶38

Point No.ii)

¶39

B' In the result, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶40

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.96,99,7701- (Rupees Ninety Six Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy only) i.e., i) a sum of Rs.69,22,333/- with interest @ 13.400/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶41

iii) a sum of Rs.27,77,437l- with interest @ L4.2So/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶42

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

¶43

The Applicant bank is arso entiiled to proceed against the person and

¶44

towards realization of the debt due. ed to the costs of the OA.

¶45

¶46

(oA.No.348 /2024,)

¶47

L2' The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶48

of receipt of order.

¶49

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

L4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to the P'A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of Dec,2025)

¶52

sdl-

¶53

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

05oEcM

¶55

Fegistrar
nRf-/. I,f ','?l:r' " ^ !].

¶56

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Durga Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Durga 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammed Ismail versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Mohan Babu Amgoth versus Shriram Finance Limited

Yemapalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Anuradha Pothuganti

State Bank of India versus Sri. Amand Rajashwar