Allowed

State Bank of India v. Madhuri Food Zone, Rep by Its Proprietor Smt. Ungarala Sridevi

DRT9 Oct 2025OA/424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a loan default of Rs. 23,95,6921 inclusive of interest and costs. The defendants were set ex-parte and held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount along with interest from the application date.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.23,95,6921 with future interest at 9.15% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties of defendants.

State Bank of India versus Madhuri Food Zone, Rep… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 424 OF 2025

¶5

State Bank of India., SMECC Branch, Cyberabad No.72-6-39/ A/2F, Y Junction Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 Medchal Malkajgiri District. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Madhurl Food Zone., Rep by its Proprietor, Smt. Ungarala Sridevi. H.No.21-90/68, Bharatnagar RC Puram, Hyderabad - 502032.

¶9

Smt. Ungarala Sridevi

¶10

Wo.^{UngaralaNagaraju,Major} Female, H.No.21-90/68, LIG - 422 Bharatinagar, RC Puram, Hyderabad-502032.

¶11

... Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. P. V. Satyanarayana Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

:: ORDER ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.23,95,6921- i,e,, a sum of Rs.15,65,094/- towards CC Loan Limit and a sum of Rs.8,30,598/- towards Term^Loan Limit from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @14.40olo p.a. monthly rest:;lff)m.the date of ....q\e

oA.NO.424l202s

application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶19

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They

¶20

were set ex-parte on 13.08.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Burra Raj Sumanth Kumar, Chief

¶22

Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as

¶23

Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Amdavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally tiable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present Originat Application No.424/2025 is

¶29

allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Appticant.&ank a totat ffi**

¶31

o.A.NO.424l2O2s

¶32

sum of Rs.23,95,6921- i.e., a sum of Rs.15,65,094/- towards CC Loan Limit and^a sum of Rs.8,30,598/- towards Term^Loan Limit; with future interest @9.15olo F.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by waY of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against} the same to realise its debu

¶34

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

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the^costs.

¶36

The Applicant Bank^is directed^{to file Cost Memo withln2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶37

Issue Recovery CertiFicate^accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, siEned and^{pronounced by me in the open court on} this the ogrh Day of odober, 2025). ,.,4 //yry-*9 / L/do,'r'"' (Rhr"fEsHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Madhuri Food Zone, Rep by Its Proprietor Smt. Ungarala Sridevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Madhuri Food Zone, Rep by Its Proprietor Smt. Ungarala Sridevi

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

Canara Bank versus Sri.Ranganatha .a.T

Axis Bank versus Kanwaljit Singh

Union Bank of India versus Shaikh Imran Shaikh Nizam

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Venkat Sri Automotives

Axis Bank versus a Stephen Jones

Hdfc Bank versus Hi Tech Agencies