Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. Burra Mahesh

DRT11 May 2026OA/171/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against respondents to recover a debt sum of Rs.6.25 crores along with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.6,25,89,005/ with interest; entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicles and mortgaged property; recovery certificate issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Burra Mahesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.171 of 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Bra n ch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its authorized officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Nandamuri Transporters^private Limited, Represented by its partners,

¶10

a) Nandamuri Srinivas,

¶11

s/o Late N. Rambabu

¶12

b) Smt N. Surekha,

¶13

w/o Late N. Ram Babu,

¶14

office at H.No.2-4- 1048/19, plot no.19, sy.No.133, samathapuri colony, LB nagar, Hyderabad, TS - 500 069.

¶15

Sri Nandamuri Srinivas, s/o Late N. Rambabu,

¶16

aged about 42 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.no.12-1-485/EP, plot no.52, Dhanalaxmi colony, near Vishalandhra, nagole, Bandlaguda - 5L7 325.

¶17

,t": . Also at tip H. No.2-4- 1048/ 19, sh,,,e :t plot no.19, sy.No.133, samathapuri colony, LB 1 1 fiAr ,rrr Hyderabad, TS - 500 0

¶18

Smt Nandamuri Surekha, w/o Late N. Rambabu, aged about 61 years, female, R/o flat no.4o2,4th floor, Apoorva Residence, Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur, Ranga reddy District - 500 084.

¶19

Also at

¶20

H. No.40- 15/ 1-9l 1, Siris raju Street, Brundavan Colony, Labbipet, Venkateswarapuram, Vijayawada - 520 010.

¶21

Sri Nandamuri Umadevi, w/o Sri N. Srinivas, aged about 40 years, occ: business, female, H.no. 12- 1-485/EP, plot no.52, Dhanalaxmi colony, near Vishalandhra, nagole, Bandlaguda - 517 325.

¶22

Also at

¶23

H. No.2-4- 1048/ 19, plot no.19, sy.No.133, samathapuri colony, LB nagar, Hyderabad, TS - 500 069.

¶24

Defendants

¶25

Counsel for the Parties:

¶26

For the Applicant

¶27

For the Defendants

¶28

Smt Tarangini Pisipati Expa rte

¶29

ORDER

¶30

evised as per orders in MA.55/2026)

¶31

nk filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶32

,, '',^Tntoflonlf" recove ry I sum of Rs.6,25,89,O05/- (Rupees Six Crores khs Eighty Nine Thousand and five only) i.e.,

¶33

rpTn g

¶34

a) A sum of Rs.4,15,04,t45/- with interest @ 11.55% p.a with monthly rests from 21.O4.2025 till the date of realisation;

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.2,10,84,860/- with interest @ 14.90olo p.a with monthly rests from 21.04.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of 10 hypothecated vehicles and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule "A & B" to OA.

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is the Public Limited Company represented by its Directors defendants no.2 & 3 and defendants 2 & 4 stood as guarantors availed Rs.4.95 crores for purchase of 10 Ashok Leyland vehicles vide letter of arrangement dated 14.02.2023. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 16.03.2023. The defendants also mortgaged the schedule mentioned property in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 08.01.2025 and recall notice was issued on 08.04.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶37

bsent and set exparte on 17.06.2025.

¶38

Smt Kalyani Rathod, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶39

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶40

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?

¶41

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.16. 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 Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶42

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.6,25,89,OO51- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty

¶43

Five Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand and five only) i.e.,

¶44

a) A sum of Rs.4,15,04,145/- with interest @ 11.55olo p.a from 21.04.2025 till the date of realisation; - .,i

¶45

I ...b)^{A suq;4f Rsi2iu0,84,860/-with interest @ 14.90% p.a from} 'ilau r: ,-.1 .^j

¶46

2L.04.2025 t$llt tne date of realization

¶47

c) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated vehicles and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule^*A &

¶48

B" to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶49

d) The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

e) The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶51

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

¶52

g) Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶53

h) Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th May, 2026)

¶55

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) '1i€4"*P^{RE s I D I N G o F F I c E R}

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. Burra Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. Burra Mahesh

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S Satya Durga Industries

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Laxmi Narasimha Traders

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vignatha Granites

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nandamuri Transporters Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vignesh Powerloom Industry