Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sujatha Spices

DRT24 Oct 2025OA/469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal matter, the court heard an applicant bank's application for recovery of dues totaling over Rs. 54 lakhs. Finding the defendant liable based on annexed accounts and statements, the tribunal allowed the claim and authorized proceedings against hypothecated movables and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 54,00,055/- with interest; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated properties and person; issue of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sujatha Spices — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.469 of 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-2, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sujatha Spices, Represented by its Proprietor, Smt Moderch Sujatha, C/o Desavath Vasanth Naik, Plot no.3B5, H.No.4-43/3, Torrur, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy district - 501 511.

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

For the Applicant Defendant

Sri K. Sundeep

Sri S.M. Hussain

ORDER

I the present OA against Defendants for of Rs.54,00,O55/- (Rupees Fifty Four ly) (Rs.47.54,099/- + Rs.6,45,956/-) rest @ 12.4yo p.a with monthly rests from

¶16

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

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant is an individuar working in a private company represented by its proprieotr smt M. Sujatha availed term loan of Rs.43.00 lakhs and cash credit of Rs.6.00 rakhs on 10.02.2023. The defendant hypothecated all the movables in favour of applicant bank. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on L3.6.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 04.12.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.54,OO,O55/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs and fifty five only) (Rs.47,54,o99/- + Rs.6,45,956/-) with current and future interest @ 12.4o/o p.a with monthry rests from date of oA tiil the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶18

The Defendant fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA' It is contended that the Agreement of roan cum ecduon ls a v document since it was executed at Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present pA. that the classification of loan

¶19

account as NPA on 13.06,2024 is deliberate and not intimated

¶20

defendant. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶21

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶22

Heard the arguments.

¶23

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶24

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ?

¶25

ii) To what relief ?

¶26

Point No.i):

¶27

Sri M. Ravinder, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.10 are marked through AW.1. Defendant examined herself as DW.1 and she exhibited B.1.

¶28

7 . AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant examined herself as DW.1 and filed Exhibit 8.1, but his evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendant having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the by limitation, failed to place any substantial ,^{a perusalof the} documents exhibited that all the relevant documents are

¶29

executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. The defendant very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct, But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendant. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶30

Point No.ii)

¶31

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶32

The Defendant is liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.54,0O,O55/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs and fifty five only) (Rs.47,54,0991- + Rs.6,45,956/-) with current and future interest @^{t2.4o/o p.a} from date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶33

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

¶34

The Applicant also entitled to proceed against the person and rds realization of the debt due. 11. The to the costs of the OA.

¶35

240[rzffi

¶36

12' The Appricant sha, fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶37

of receipt of order.

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 246 day of Oct, 2025)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFTCER

,#ro<br>; zr06rm ; Nrfrffin
e.ti. e.ffrr't -
bR"I",, |IY'DEF'AB/1r
WdW

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sujatha Spices

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sujatha Spices

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

P Devender Rao versus Union Bank of India

Mr Gunjala Sayanna versus Canara Bank