Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Ar Electronics.

DRT21 Apr 2026OA/1013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a cash credit loan amounting to Rs. 87,03,716/- plus future interest against the defendants, finding them jointly and severally liable and entitling the bank to proceed against hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.87,03,716/-; application allowed; recovery certificate to be issued

State Bank of India versus M/s. Ar Electronics. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 215T DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1013 OF 2025

¶5

State Bank of India., SME Branch, Narasapur X Road Balanagar, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Chief Manager. .....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. AR Electronics., Represented by its Proprietor Mrs. Rushma Khatoon, W/o. Mohammed Akramuddin, Office at Survey No.22 Opposite Hanuman Temple, Sikh Village Tarbund, Secunderabad - 500009.

¶8

Mrs. Rushma Khatoon
Wo. Mr. Mohammed Akramuddin
Aged 40 Years, Occ: Business
Rlo. L-7-57a/25/ F/3, Ramnagar
Backside Chandra Residency, Zamistanpur
Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500020.

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T. Raghunath Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

:: qLqE& ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.87.03,716l- towards Cash Credit Loan A/c. No. 4779LOA7065 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @13.650lo p.a. with monthly rests from the date nwl--,,,t\ (--./

¶13

oA.NO.1013/202s

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

Summons served on Dl and 2 through^{paper publication.} They were set ex-parte on 20.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Ch. Tulasi Naga Vara Prasad, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 18 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.18.

¶18

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

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets ?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.18 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶22

In the result, the^present Original Application No.1013/2025 is allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Nn*\

¶24

oA.NO.1013/2025

¶25

¶26

Rs.87,03,716/- towards cash Credit^Loan A/c. No. 41791087065 with future^interest @9.150/o^{p.a. simple from the date of} application till the date of^realization;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to^{file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt^{of this Order.}

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy^{of this order to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected. signed and^{pronounced by me in theopen court on} this the 21'r^{Day of} April,^2026).

¶33

fiYt'ouu*

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/s. Ar Electronics.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Ar Electronics.

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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Sri Shanmukha Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mrs. Shabana Begum Moulvi

Smt Shaik Farzana and two others versus Khan Patan

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Ameya Laboratories Limited

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Keshar Gypsum Steels

Canara Bank versus Sri. D. Rama Krishna