Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sky Bricks Industry

DRT7 May 2026OA/125/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor's son as guarantor. The bank sought recovery of outstanding dues, future interest, and the right to proceed against mortgaged properties after the defendants defaulted on cash credit and term loans. The defendants remained absent and the bank established its cla

What did the court decide?

The defendants are ordered to pay Rs.44,89,345.00 with future interest @16.15% p.a. The bank is entitled to proceeds from mortgaged property and a Recovery Certificate is issued.

State Bank of India versus Sky Bricks Industry — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OTth DAY OF MAY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA. No. 125 OF 2026

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 2nd Floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Sky Bricks lndustry, Represented by its Sole Proprietor, Guguloth Kavitha,

¶11

D/o. Guguloth Lachiram,

¶12

3-5, Kandlakunta Thanda,

¶13

Surepalle, Bhongir Mandal,

¶14

Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District - 508 285

¶15

Guguloth Govardan, S/o. Guguloth Lachiram, Aged about 36years, Occ: Business,

¶16

3-5, Kandlakunta Thanda,

¶17

ir Mandal,
District - 508 285
r--ffi
J 12 no,'r ryt *
W--

¶18

Defendants

¶19

(oA. No. 12512026)

¶20

Counsel for the^parties :

¶21

For The Applicant G. Venkat Sri Maithreya For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 06.05.2026 Pronounced on 07.05.2026 Upload in website on 12.05.2026

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.44,89,345.00 PS. (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Five Only) i.e a sum of - Rs.20,15,586/- under Cash credit Loan Account and Rs.24,73,759/- under Term Loan Account together with future interest @16.15o/" p.a with monthly rests from 19.12.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgage Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶24

*
U

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 is a Proprietorship Firm Represented by its availed Cash Credit Loan of Rs.19,00,000/- and Term Rs.28,50,000/- together with interest and executed Loan cum Hypothecation dated 13.09.2023 in 2

¶26

i,b.,

¶27

(oA. No. L25/2o26]|

¶28

favor of the Applicant Bank and Hypothecated the^Movables morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property to OA^{in favor of the} Applicant Bank. The Defendant No.2 stood as a^{Guarantor and} executed Guarantee Agreement dated 14.09.2023^{in favor of the} Applicant Bank. The Defendants created Equitable^Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of^property to OA and^executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 13.09.2023ⁱⁿ 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^26.03.2025 and issued Loan Recall cum Demand notice on 12.06.2025 lo 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 06.05.2026.

¶30

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

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant itled for the claim made in the OA against the prayed for?

¶33

1 2 r{Ay 2o26^*

¶34

(OA. No. 12y2026)

¶35

Defendants 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.11. 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 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^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.44,89,345.00 PS. (Rupees Fofi Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Five Only) i.e a sum of - Rs.20,'15,586/under Cash credit Loan Account and Rs.24,73,,7591- under Term Loan Account together with future interest @16.15% p.a from 19.12.2025 till the date of realization

¶38

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of the Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

.r':'r": licant Bank is entitled to proceed against the person and
;. ': ::.i I
,' 'dr '.,-. ' "
6 -,:jl of Defendant No. 2 and properties of Defendant no. 1
s realization of the debt due.
{i *
t,
12 ilAY 2026 *
ii
:tl ?

¶40

(OA. No. 12612026)

¶41

11 That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶42

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

¶43

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P A. transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me tn the open court on this the 071h day of May. 2026)

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE

#t."
j 1 2 ilAy 2025 *
,

¶50

isrt. Regxror
o#J irvoEnaano

State Bank of India v. Sky Bricks Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sky Bricks Industry

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 Tangallapally Gnaneshwar versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Ameya Industries

Indian Bank versus M/S. Avirbhava Infratech India Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Lns Bricks

State Bank of India versus M/S Bioeq Care Private Limited

Mr Mohammed Ameenuddin Saleem versus Indian Bank