Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Pathulothu Sridevi Dairy Farm

DRT2 Apr 2026OA/132/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of a loan of approximately Rs. 21 lakhs plus interest against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor. The court held that the bank established its claim through evidence despite the respondents' absence and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,96,331/- plus 11.15% p.a. interest from 04.02.2026; costs; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Pathulothu Sridevi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.132 ot 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, AMCC Miryalaguda-62529 First floor, Rajiv Chowk branch, Rajiv Chowk, Miryalaguda Nalgonda district - 508 207. Represented by its Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Pathulothu Sridevi Dairy Farm, Prop. Pathulothu Sridevi, H.no.2-90, Harja Thanda, Ragadapa, Thripuraram, Nalgonda - 508 207.

¶10

Mrs. Pathulothu Sridevi, W/o Ramulu Naik, aged major, Female, H.no.2-90, Harja Thanda, Ragadapa, Thripuraram, Nalgonda - 508 207.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant

¶14

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju For the Exparte Reserved on 25.03.2026 Prono u nced 02.04.2026 02.04.2026 uptoaded in werb$ite d 2 RpR 2026 ' -*

¶15

(oA.No132/2026)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.21,96,331/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred and thirty one only)

¶18

with interest @ 11.15% p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o pendl interest from 04.02.2026 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed cash credit limit of Rs.2.00 lakhs and term roan of Rs.17 rakhs and executed copy of retter of arrangement, agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 05.L2'2023. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued regar notice dated 10.02.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 25.03.2026.

¶21

Mr. G. Na of the Applicant Bank examined himself )4. as AW.1./6nf, r documents, which are marked as i '..

¶22

Ex.A,1 to A.6. o 2 npR ?ozn

¶23

(oA.No132/2025)

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶26

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and she exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.6. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinuy and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.2l,96,3gl/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred and thirty one only) with interest @ 11.15olo p.a from 04.02.2026 till the date of realization.

¶29

entitled to proceed against the hypothecated the schedule to OA towards realization of

¶30

(oA.No132/2026)

¶31

10, The Appricant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

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

¶33

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the^p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, slgned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2id day of Aptil, 2026)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

iTnry

State Bank of India v. M/S. Pathulothu Sridevi Dairy Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Pathulothu Sridevi Dairy Farm

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Challa Raghupathi Rao

State Bank of India versus Mr. Malthumkar Sunil Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr.S. Narasing Rao

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Mende Srinivas Innovations

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ramavath Ramaja Dairy Farm

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Falcon Facilities India Private Limited