Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Sri Lucky Hostels

DRT24 Oct 2025OA/401/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against Sri Sri Lucky Hostels and Madasu Simha Chalam Reddy for recovery of loan dues totaling Rs. 22,55,492/- along with interest and costs, declaring the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Return of Rs. 22,55,492/- with future interest; right to proceed against hypothecated movables; joint and several liability order.

State Bank of India versus Sri Sri Lucky Hostels — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24rH DAy OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.4O1 ol 2O2S

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Branch office at SMECC Centre, Bank street, Gunfoundry, Chapel road, Abids, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Sri Lucky Hostels, Plot no,26, opp: police station, Adibhatla, Ranga Reddy District - 501 510. Represented by its^proprietor Madasu Simha Chalam Reddy,

¶9

And

¶10

R/o flat no.309, 3.d floor, A V L G K Apartments, Adibatla, Ranga Reddy district - 501 510.

¶11

Mr. Madasu Simha Chalam Reddy, s/o Madasu Nara Hari Reddy, aged 46 years, occ: business, R/o flat no.309, 3'd floor, A V L G K Apartments, Adibatla, Ranga Reddy district - 501 510.

¶12

And

¶13

"pol Plot no. 26, opfi : ice st.,,j]]\ Adibhatla, Ranga Reddll i r+ i, " i\ District - 501 510. Defendants irj^{z o ocr ?025} :i; ')i€.,* \r t* ".^."_ -".i;'-:,T//ⁱⁱ

¶14

(OA.No.401 of 2025)

¶15

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri Veera Shiva Kumar For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on 2L.L0.2025 Pronounced on 24.t0.2025 Uploaded in website on 24.t0.2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,55,492l- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Two only) i.e.,

¶18

a) A sum of Rs.17,09,692/- in respect of loan A/c. No.42766L42238 with further interest @ t2.75o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶19

b) A sum of Rs.5,45,800/- in respect of loan A/c.43009139398 with further interest @ 12.75o/o p,a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶20

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

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that ."'^{': t-} ,

¶22

defendant no:1 is represented by defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.16,81,000/.- and cash'credit of Rs.5.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangerftFDt dated O2.03.2024 and executed deed of^guaranteed

¶23

¶24

(oA.No.401 of 202s)

¶25

agreement. The defendants hypothecated the movables as mentioned in the schedule to oA in favour of Appricant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 06.04.2025 and legal notice was issued on 06.08.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 21.10.2025.

¶27

Sri B. Harindranath, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.11.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

6' The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the oA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶30

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.11. In view of ld that the Applicant Bank has established their the Defendants and hence the Applicant

¶31

(OA.No.401 of 2025)

¶32

Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,55,4921- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Two only) i.e.,

¶34

a) A sum of Rs.L7,09,692/- in respect of loan A/c. No.42766L42238 with further interest @ 12.75o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.5,45,800/- in respect of loan A/c.43009139398 with further interest @ L2.75o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶36

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the^hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realisation of the debt due.

¶37

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm

¶38

towards real of the debt due.

¶39

to the costs of the OA.

¶40

¶41

(OA.No.401 of 2025)

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the^{parties concerned'}

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^{pronouncedby mein the opencourt on} this the 24h day of Oct, 2025)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

tl
offi(
*iht&

State Bank of India v. Sri Sri Lucky Hostels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Sri Lucky Hostels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited

K Sarojana versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sujatha Spices

P Devender Rao versus Union Bank of India