Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Manikanta Fly Ash Bricks

DRT12 Dec 2025OA/449/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of loan dues amounting to over Rs. 25 lakhs, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application after finding the bank had substantiated its claim via documentary evidence. The defendants were absent, and the Tribunal ordered joint and several liability for repayment with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay the principal sum with future interest and costs; recovery certificate issued; permission granted to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Manikanta Fly Ash Bricks — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

lN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SR! cUMMADI cOptGHAND, PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 449 OF 2025

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 2nd Floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Center, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad

¶5

Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s.Manikanta Fly Ash Bricks, Rep. by its Proprietor, Dharavath Raju,

¶9

Mr. Dharavath Raju,

¶10

S/o. Athiram,

¶11

Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business, Male.

¶12

Both are residents -

¶13

R/o. H.No.1-4011, Rolla Banda Thanda, Vattikhamman^pahad, Chiwemla, Suryapet - 508 213.

¶14

Also at -

¶15

Office at -

¶16

H.No. Sy No. 200t4t 1 t1 tZt 1 t2, Bibigudem, Suryapet - 508 213. Defendants

¶17

(OA. No. 4491202s)

¶18

Counsel for the parties :

¶19

For The Applicant Tarangini Pisipati For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 08.12.2025 Pronounced on 12.12.2025 Upload in website on 12.12.2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants No. 1 and 2 lor recovery of a total sum of Rs.2S,97,146/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty Six Only) i.e a sum of -

¶22

(i) Rs.l0,30,504/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thifi Thousand Five Hundred and Four Onty) with future interest @ 13.40y0 p.a with monthly rests from 10.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶23

(ii) Rs.15,66,642/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fofi Two Onty) with future interest @ 13.40o/o p. monthly rests 31 .08.2025 till the date of realization. r''*\d,) *N I^"'ffi _(s

¶24

"brW

¶25

(oA. No. a49l202s)

¶26

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedule properties A and B to OA.

¶27

¶28

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant No. 2 availed Term Loan facility of Rs.15.50 Lakhs repayable in g4 monthly installments of Rs.28,483/- with interest @1340% p.a with monthly rests and Cash credit facitity of Rs.9.50 Lakhs with interest @1340% p.a with monthly rests and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 17.10.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants no. 1 and 2 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule B to the OA and executed Memorandum For Recording Creation of Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds dated 17.10.2023 and deposited the Sale Deed and Mortgage Deed in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 31.03.2025 and issued Legat notice dated 31.0g.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 0g.12.2025.

¶30

17 i,tl

¶31

(oA. No. 449/202s)

¶32

Sri. Sandeep Paridala, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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?

¶35

Defendants and remained 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.A.1 to A.10. 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 entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶36

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

¶37

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.25,97,146/(Rupees Ninety SeVen Thousand One Hundred of-

¶38

1? a$ 1tfi *

¶39

(OA. No. 4491202s)

¶40

(i) Rs.l0,30,504/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Four Only) with future interest @ 13.40%o p.a from 10.09.2025 tilt the date of reatization.

¶41

(ii) Rs.l5,66,642/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two Only) with future interest @ 13.40o/o p.a 31.08.2025 till the date of reallzation.

¶42

¶43

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties mentioned in the Schedule Properties A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(oA. No. 4ael202s)

¶48

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12s day of Dec, 2O2S)

¶51

sd/(c. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶52

.. r.:"
.4/ -4.ir::- .!
.,6 ..iii
dt" t;:5
x
1 , A ^r-t{utL
W;*$

¶53

State Bank of India v. M/S. Manikanta Fly Ash Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Manikanta Fly Ash Bricks

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

Smt Sangeeta Agarwal versus the Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Mr Paravelli Rajesh versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

Ms Nanditha Enterprises Private Limited versus Canara Bank

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