Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kirthy Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd.

DRT11 Mar 2026OA/183/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a debt of Rs. 5,23,67,464/- along with interest against a partnership firm and its guarantors/guaranty providers based on unchallengeable evidence.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5,23,67,464/- plus interest; recovery certificate issued against mortgaged/m hypothecated properties and personal properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kirthy Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1ITH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.183 ol2025

Between:

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-Il, House No.1-8-563/1, first floor, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC X roads, Hyderabad, Telangana State Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Kirthy Pharma Chem Pvt Ltd, 202, Shell paradise, Madhavapuri Hills, Gangaram, Madeenaguda, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District - 500 050.

¶11

Tumma Balakrishna Kumar, Resident of Flat No.202, Shell Paradise Building. PJR Enclave. Road No.5, Madhavapuni Hills. Chandanagar Hyderabad. Telangana 500050

¶12

Smt. Tummanagiri Naveena 202. Shell Paradise, Madhavapuri Hills, Gangaram, Madeenaguda, Serilngampally, Ranga Reddy Dist Telangana 500050

¶13

And also at202, Shell Paradise, Madhavapuri Hills, Gangaram, Madeenaguda, Serilingampaly, Ranga Reddy

¶14

eBs
fi rP & "d\l
,<br>,l *
iE ,1mR2il28 *
W--"}V

¶15

(oA.No.183l202sl

¶16

Dist Telangana 500 050

¶17

Sri. Thumma Gautam, R/o House No. 16-31-532/403, 6th Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072

¶18

And also at Resident of 108, Sri Sai Homes, Road No.5, Chandanagar, Hyderabad 500 050.

¶19

Sri. Koutarapu Adi Subramanyam, Residing at Door No. 35-19-2017, Chaitanya Nagar, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam

¶20

And also at 202, Shell Paradise, Madhavapuri Hills, Gangaram, Madeenag uda, Serili ngampa lly, Ranga Reddy Dist Telangana 500 050

¶21

Smt. Koutarapu Yamuna Devi, Residing at Door No. 35-19-20/7, Chaitanya Nagar, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

¶22

And also at: 202, Shell Paradise, Madhavapuri Hills, Gangaram, Madeenaguda, Serilinga mpally, Ranga Reddy Dist Telangana 500 050

¶23

Smt Koutarapu Naga Pramela, Residing at D.No.7-7-9-6m lane, Kakumani vari Thotha, Guntur.

¶24

And also at 202, Shell Paradise, Madhavapuri Hills, Gangaram, Madeenaguda, Serili ngampa lly, Ranga Reddy Dist Telangana 500 050

¶25

Telangana State Industrial Corporation Limited (TSIIC Ltd),

¶26

11ilAR m *
),
t..',$n,,*q#
{B

¶27

(OA.No.183 /202s)

¶28

A Govt Company represented by its Zonal Manager having its office At 5-9-58/8, 6th floor, Parishrama bhavan, Fateh maidan road, Hyderabad.

¶29

Defendants

¶30

Counsel for the Parties:

¶31

For the Applicant Sri M.V. Janaki Ram Defendants No.L ,2,3,5 to7 Sri G. Dinesh Kumar Defendant no.8 Exparte Orders reserved on 06.03,2026 Pronounced on Lt.03.2026 Uploaded in website on LL.03.2026

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.5r23,61,4641- (Rupees Five crores Twenty Three Lakhs sixty seven Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four onty) i.e.,

¶34

a) A sum of Rs.1,20,70,255/- under cash credit from defendants no.1 to 7 with interest @ lTo/o p.a with monthly rests from L5.04.2025 till the date of realization;

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.4,02,97 ,2091- from defendants no. L to 7 with interest

¶36

h monthly rests from LS.04.2OZS till the date of

¶37

of mortgaged properties and hypothecated in the schedule to OA.

¶38

¶39

(oA.No.183 /20zsl

¶40

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partner/ defendant no.2 and defendants no 2 to 7 stood as guarantors availed Rs.100 lakhs towards cash credit and Rs.460 lakhs towards term loan facility on 30.08.2021. Defendants no.2 to 3 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation for Rs.560 lakhs and defendants no.2 to 7 stood as guarantors executed guarantee agreement. Defendant no.B is a Govt company has allotted the schedule mentioned property and handed over the possession to defendant no.1 Firm company. The defendants mortgaged the schedule properties and hypothecated the movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA. 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. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated Ls.o4.zozs, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.5,23,67,464/- (Rupees Five crores Twenty Three Lakhs sixty seven Thousand Four Hundred and sixty Four only) with interest @ L2o/o p.a with monthly 94.2025^{till the date} of^realization. Hence

¶41

the
/,f",
*
11 2tl2$
Wa#P

¶42

(oA. No.183/202s)

¶43

The Defendant No.1 filed written statement and defendants no.2,3,5 to 7 adopted the same and denied the averments made in OA. It is admitted by the defendants that they availed term loan of Rs.1OO.OO lakhs towards cash credit and Rs.460 lakhs towards term loan facility from Applicant bank. It is submitted that defendant no.8 a Govt Company has allotted the schedule property to defendant no.1 company and handed over the possession of schedule property to defendant no.1. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA,

¶44

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶45

Heard the arguments.

¶46

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶47

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

¶48

ii) To what relief ?

¶49

Point No.i):

¶50

Mr. D. Pradeep, Chief Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the about the liability of the defendants. Exh ;;&.# through AW.1. 11 ilAR 2fi26 7. As the Applicant Bank and also as per the admi ants in the Written statement, it is very 5

¶51

(oA.No.183/202s)

¶52

clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the Applicant bank failed to follow the RBI guidelines as per the norms.

¶53

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW,1 coupled with recitals Ex.A,1 to A.34 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶54

Point No.ii)

¶55

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

¶56

The Defendants No. 1 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,23,67,464/- (Rupees Five

¶57

Crores Twpntyil.t{ee Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four
,,"P,4jo$ il;'fu,,,r,.".,
i,"w 4$
f: rrfrzur';}
'i, ri 7 ii
li.F- , - 3j
W,"oSl6

¶58

(oA.No.183/202s)

¶59

a) A sum of Rs.1,20,70,255/- under cash credit from defendants no.1to 7 with interest @ 12olo p.a from L5.04.2025 till the date of realization;

¶60

b) A sum of Rs.4,02,97,209/- from defendants no.1 to 7 with interest @ 11.40olo p.a from t5.04.2025 till the date of realization;

¶61

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

¶62

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 7 and properties of defendants no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶66

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶67

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on of March'2026)

¶68

sdl-

¶69

dyffi

¶70

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶71

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kirthy Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kirthy Pharma Chem Pvt. Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Aleti Aruna

State Bank of India versus Gootty Chandra Sekhar

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sri. K. Venkataiah Goud

Canara Bank versus Smt. Padmamma

Canara Bank versus Sri Laxmi Powerloom Industry

State Bank of India versus Dommati Sai Krishna