Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Jagannath Industries

DRT6 Mar 2026OA/19/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of loans. The court rejected the defendants' plea regarding Corona losses and held them jointly and severally liable to pay the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 27,57,867/- with interest and costs; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri Jagannath Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD . DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2025.

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India SM ECCC-Cyberabad D.No. 12-6-39/A/2F Y Junction, Kukatpally Hyderabad-500072. Hyderabad. Rep by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. Sri Jagannath Industries Rep by Smt. Mamata Sahoo

¶9

Smt. Mamata Sahoo C/o Sri Mahir Kumar Sahoo Aged about 39 years Occ: Business

¶10

D. No. 6-2-10318, Shobana Colony Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶11

Also at: H. No. 6-2-13614 Shobana Colony, Road No.3 Near Vegetable Market Balanagar, Hyderabad-500042. Medchal-Malkajgiri District .... Defendants.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr, y. Venkataramana. Counsel for Defendants : M/s. G. Vinod Nayak. Ow*

oA.L9/202s

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,57,867l- from defendants joinUy and severally with further interest @12,500/o per annum with monthly rests and also penal interest at 2o/o from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶17

The averments of applicant bank, as per the OA, briefly, are;

¶18

Defendants availed cash credit facility of Rs.12,00,000/- and working capital of Rs.18,00,000/- to establish a Table Fan and Ceiling Fan manufacturing unit under the Government's Stand Up India Scheme by executing necessary loan documents. They agreed to repay the loan amounts with interest @11.80 per annum with monthly rests. They hypothecated the machinery equipment, stock-in-trade and all receivables in favour of the applicant bank towards the loans. The 2nd defendant stood as a guarantor. Defendants neglected the payment of loan amounts regularly in spite of repeated requests and personal visits, followed by NPA classification by 28.05.2024. Applicant bank issued legal notice on 20.06.2024 either to regularise the loan account or pay the entire amount due. In spite of acknowledging the receipt of legal notice, defendants failed to regularise the loan account or repaid the dues. Hence, the present OA.

¶19

Defendants filed written statement. The averments in the written statement, in brief, are:

¶20

Despite best efforts defendants could not recover from the losses caused during Corona. De^fendants have no malafides to W,*

¶21

oA.Lgl2O2s

¶22

repayment of the loan amounts. What all the defendants seek from this Tribunal is to grant some temporary relief to settle the matter amicably.

¶23

In order to prove its claim, the Applicant Bank examined S. Prathik Yadav, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants reported no evidence on behalf of defendants.

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Defendants' right to advance arguments was forfeited for nonrepresentation vide docket order dated t2.02.2026. Perused the material placed on record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant bank submits that defendants have availed cash credit limit and term loan facilities on 07.11.2022. Whereas, the OA is filed on 2t.t0.2024. The defendants became irregular in repayment. Applicant bank classified the loan account as back as 28.05.2024, followed by legal notice on 20.06.2024 calling for either to regularisation of loan account or repayment of entire dues. The legal notice was duly served on the defendants vide Exhibits Exs.A.6 and A.7 produced before this Tribunal through the AW.1. In spite of legal notice, defendants neither cleared the outstanding dues nor did they take steps for regularisation of the loan account. Though Corona pandemic spread in the year 2000 and the loan was taken in the year 2022, defendants try to take shelter under the pretext of losses suffered on account of Corona as a reason for default in repayment. Therefore, their prayer relating to requirement of more time to settle the matter amicably is

¶27

^/ / x /Y$r..<l y ,?..$ U'

¶28

oA.791202s

¶29

not tenable. In that view of the matter, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA claim in favour of the applicant bank and against the defendants in the interest ofjustice.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the OA claim against the

¶32

2 Defendants?

¶33

Except making a bald statement, defendants do not seem to have made any efforts to settle the matter with the applicant bank so far. Such is the situation; I hold that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶34

In the result, the present Original Application No.19/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶35

i) the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.27,57,867l- along with interest @11.80o/o per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶36

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and^properties of defendants for realisation of its dues; and

¶37

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶38

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

¶39

oA.79l2OZ5

¶40

12, Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcernedand} upload in official Web Portal.

¶42

(Dictated to the steno, signed and^pronounced by me in the^{opencourt on this the 6th} day of March, 2026).

¶43

fi26*x

¶44

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri Jagannath Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Jagannath Industries

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Pp Engineering

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Sunkari Apparao Gold Spot

Ayyanna It Park LLP Rep by P Sreedhar versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Mugala Suprita

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Munjeti Chiranjeevi

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Vikas Agarwal