Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Koolsafe Global

DRT9 Dec 2025OA/429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application by a bank against a partnership firm and two guarantors for recovery of Rs. 87.66 lakhs along with future interest and costs upon an ex-parte hearing where the bank established its claim through affidavit evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 87,66,985/- with future interest; proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties; issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Koolsafe Global — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE^gth DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SRI cUMMAD| cOpICHAND, PREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 429 OF Z02S

¶3

Between: State Bank of lndia, SME Branch, Hyderabad, H. No.3-6-1 99, Flat No. 302, Third Floor, Above Westside, Besides Minerva Coffee Shop, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad Represented by its Asst. General Manager

¶4

Applicant

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

M/s. Koolsafe Global, A Partnership Firm represented by its partners Plot No. 6, Near SVWAP Ashram, IDA Jeedimetia,

¶7

Hyderabad - 500 055.

¶8

Miss. Dasi Rajasri, D/o Ega Suraiah, Female, Major, H.No.4-32-264, 2nd floor, Phase - 1, Near IDFC ATM, Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Medchal, Hyderabad - 500 072. ti . ilHllr: 0 I oEt 2m5 R -{

¶9

(oA. No. 429l202s)

¶10

Miss Vijaya Mary Maram, D/o. Maram Stephen, Female Major, H.No. 1-30-8401, 2nd Floor, National lnsurance Colony, Tirumalagiri, Medchal, Hyderabad - 500 015.

¶11

Also At -

¶12

Miss Vijaya Mary Maram, D/o. Maram Stephen, H.No.1-6-4411/38, plot No. 38, Muthyam Reddy Naga, kanajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 015.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the parties :

¶15

For The Applicant M.V.JanakiRam For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 05.12.2025 Pronounced on 09.12.2025 Upload in website on 09.12.2025

¶16

lOA.^No.a29/20251

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.87,66,985/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five Only) with future interest @ 11.40% p.a with monthly rests from 11.09.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties as mentioned in the Schedules of^property I to lll to OA.

¶19

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a^partnership Firm represented by its Partners Defendants No. 2 and 3 availed cash credit facility of Rs.88.00 Lakhs with interest @12.5o/o p.a with monthly rests and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 08.09.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants no. 2 and 3 stood as Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 08.09.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 2 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of^property - ll to the OA and executed Affidavit duly notarized before a Notary public on 25.0g.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 3 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property - lll to the OA and executed Affidavit duly notarized b*qfq{e.e Notary Public on 25.08.2023 in favor of the appticant '.,,^,,,::,-,..'. ling the loan facility, the defendants faited to :t^-' lI;, iiJ ti , o s orr ildd- ".

¶21

(oA. No. 42912025)

¶22

comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 12.03.2025 and issued Demand notice dated 19.03.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2OO2 and Legal Notice dated 15.09.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 05.12.2025.

¶24

Sri. Kaviraju Lammata, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.17.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

¶27

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?

¶28

Defendants and remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.17. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made i4.t!e,Q{ with future interest and costs.

¶29

-r':.'-
,
Ji ,{.' ..:
li'",.:'.
1,, i.*.
Il,, 0 I i1Fc t,a, * ii 4
I \ l ..Yi .,:r
r I .,,,
1, -t ';:/'

¶30

(oA. No. 4291202s)

¶31

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶32

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.g7,66,9g5/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five Only) with future interest @ 11.40% p.a from 11.09.2025 tiil the date of reatization.

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the

¶34

Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties mentioned in the Schedule of the property I to lll to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 and 3 and properties of Defendant No. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶37

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

¶38

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Oictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, conected, signed and pronounced by me in the open courl on this the th day of Dec, 2025)

¶41

t..l- ::.-.
.
t 11 ag lr} 2W ,i ri
a:#K

¶42

sd/-
(c. coPtcHAND)
PRESID!NG OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Koolsafe Global

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Koolsafe Global

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

Union Bank of India versus Dappu Yadagiri

Sairam Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mr Palla Kiran Kumar versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Pokkula Sandhya

Sri Venkata Sai Traders and Another versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Rajkumar Poultry