Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Jamili Bricks

DRT30 Jul 2026OA/20/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act context (DT T), the Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a term loan of Rs.21,05,687 along with future interest and costs, holding the defendant liable and entitled the bank to proceed against hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is directed to pay Rs.21,05,687 with future interest; the applicant is entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets, defendant's properties, and awarded costs.

Central Bank of India versus Jamili Bricks — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 20 OF 2025

¶4

Central Bank of India., Vanasthalipuram Branch, H.No.5-4-634 Ground Floor, Near Kamala Nagar Bus Stop, Kamala Nagar, Vanasthalipuram Hyderabad, Telangana - 500070. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lamili Bricks., A Proprietary Concern of Gugulothu Jamili, Rep by its Sole Proprietor Gugulothu Jamili, R/o. Plot No. 89 Badangpet, Meerpet, Bala^pur Ranqa Reddy District, Telanga na-501505.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Plot No. 189, Banjara Colony Hayathnagar Mandal, Ra ngaeddy Telanga na - 500505.

¶10

...Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B. Ravindra Reddy

Defendant

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a^total sum of Rs.21,05,687/- towards Term Loan A/c. No.3843175197 from the defendant with future interest @11.35olo^{p.a. with} monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with coqts and in default for sale of hypothecatedassets. dWrU

¶16

oA.NO.2Ol202s

¶17

¶18

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 10.07.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined B Narasimha Rao Naik, l4anager, as AW-1 and marked 16 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.16.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated assets?

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Amdavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.16 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.2012025 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,05,687/towards Term Loan A/c. No.3843175197 with future interest @8.55o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization; fu'o'*

¶26

oA.NO.2012025

¶27

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th Day of Juty,2026).

¶34

.. 1}O*o_ .r.1-r--.,r.,,,

¶35

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Central Bank of India v. Jamili Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Jamili Bricks

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

Marla Babu versus Can Fin Homes Limited

Smt Ramya Raghupathi versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Marineni Purushotam

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Anucon Engineering Projects Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sri Paadha Dairy Products

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Ayyappa Bricks.