Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S. Sanabill Enterprises

DRT10 Jul 2026OA/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, I Hyderabad, allowed an Original Application filed by Central Bank of India against borrowers and guarantors. The Court found the defendant firm liable for overdraft and cash credit defaults, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for the outstanding sum including principal, interest, and costs, and authorized the sale of hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,37,41,099/- with interest; recovery certificate issued; entitled to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Sanabill… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE lOrH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.5 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Central Bank of India, Charminar branch, Hyderabad. Represented by its GPA holder Mr. Saikumar Thummalapenta

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sanabil Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Mohd Adam Ali, No.8-14/27 / t3lB, Meer sagar, Miralam tank, Hyderabad - 500 052. Telangana State.

¶10

Mr. Mohd Adam Ali, s/o Sri Abdul Hameed, aged major, occ: business, male, R/o H.No.8-13-67/t/2, Plot no.45, Raghavendra Co-op. Housing Society, Near National Police Academy, Shivarampally Road, Rajendra nagar, R.R. district Telangana - 500 052.

¶11

Mr. Md Yousuf, 5/o.Srt.^{MohdAdam Ali,} -.,,:''^{a.ged..m-a;o1occ: business,} ,,i' .^{-& rrnalg,' R;Q,t*} lNo.8-^{L3-67 / I / 2,} ri\ plo!-no.a5pffHrghavendra Co-op. ti ir '."' I n&tbing lrrrrJlr ly rJvrlsrrr, rrscrSoftft, Nea r rroLrrJrrorNational r' :^{1 o[3[E:fitri;PJi.:l'#'lHtlL..,} '^''i 'I,.:-i,1 lt Telanqana - -C -6O0^-\f/,i Osz.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

(oA.No.s/202s)

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant

¶16

For defendants No.1 to 3

¶17

Sri Momin Mohammed Rafiq

¶18

Sri R.A. Achuthanand

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank flled the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,37,41p99/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Forty One thousand and Ninety Nine only) i.€.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs,1,85,17,486/- in overdraft facility with interest @11.80o/o^p.a with monthly rests along with^penal interest @ 2olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.32,29,8251- in cash credit facility with interest @7.50o/o^p.a with monthly rests along with^penal interest @ 2olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

c) A sum of Rs.19,93,788/- in cash credit facility with interest @9.25o/o^p.a with monthly rests along with^penal interest @ 2olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged

¶25

.-^{-j :., --".-.-a::r.}

¶26

.,:l-,.i .:.PtogFffle$,as^{mentionedin the schedule to OA.}

¶27

1,,'"Sr^{''",'1y 't91,..1..}

¶28

/t' t*. ;it Ats,'pe!'the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank

¶29

il^u- ':? 2 \

¶30

1 ffum.^{tffifi tre*hndantNo.1is a proprietorshipfirm represented by}

¶31

t}' .,,{., ..;^{its Proprietgr$pfendantno.2 and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor} 2

¶32

' .;,\rrl:f;:$ri' --..-;,. , -'^' ->:t)-.

¶33

(oA.No.s/202s)

¶34

availed overdraft facility of RS.3.OO Crores for doing business on 0L.07.2017. To secure the due repayment of loan, the defendants executed demand promissory note for Rs.3.00 Crores, letter of waiver, letter of continuity, interest variation letter, declaration, overdraft agreement and form of guarantee all documents dated 02.08.2017. Defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of schedule B property by depositing the original sale deed no.1888/1994 dated 03.03.1994. Defendant no.2 also created equitable mortgage of schedule C property by depositing original sale deed no.30/2005 dated 04.01.2005 in favour of applicant bank. Further the defendants availed GECL limit of Rs.62.00 lakhs and agreed to repay in 36 monthly installments of Rs.|,72,223l-. Subsequently the defendants availed term loan GECL limit of Rs.30.00 lakhs and agreed to repay as per the stipulated time by RBI. Later on request by defendants the applicant bank reduced the overdraft limit from Rs.3.00 crores to Rs.2,10,00,000/-. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants having availed the said loan facilities failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued Demand notice dated 09.05.2023 and^possession Notice dted 13.07.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants _-^.j..AI.:, ,',' "n/i$Lde ./:- r,''le^{ngi.i"Sgfu.i."d} {il,t x^{the account, and did not comeforwardto repay} l'r;":'^{tn{r$amel$ire} ,=*^{totat ctaim of Appticant against defendantsis} l/^.,, Fr^rt, (l|; f f"lftrAf^{t,r,:jr- (Rupees rwo crores rhirtv seven Lakhs Forty} $:r .", '.,, \'^{..', t:.One thogs4ridl} /^'^{and Ninety Nine} only) with future interest . i.' ^^r'. :\ ..- : ^].,:.,.,.., 3 "' "'-.f':, "'-';''

¶35

.,.:;.-:-.-. J..:

¶36

(oA.No.s/202s)

¶37

@11.80o/o^p.a; @ 7.50o/o^p.a and @9.25o/o^p.a respectively with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶38

Defendants No.1 & 2 filed Written statement and denied the averments made in the OA. It is admitted that the defendants availed the loan and mortgaged the immovable properties in favour of applicant bank. It is submitted that due to loss in business could not pay the EMI's for a short period of time. It is contended that the applicant bank without issuing notices, approached Hon'ble CMM Court, Rangareddy district vide Crl.MP.62/2024 and got appointed advocate commissioner who issued notice dated L3.07.2023. Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings, the defendants filed SA.No.115/2024 and this Tribunal was pleased to pass orders in IA.758, 759/2024 directing the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in two installments. The defendants complied the conditional orders on 19.03.2024 and L8.04.2024. It is further contended that the Applicant bank classified the loan account as NPA without following the guidelines of RBI. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶39

tria I Sri B. marked

¶40

3t EoJUk'affiE u. himself Ex.B.1 to B.4.

¶41

¶42

(oA.No.s/202s)

¶43

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶44

5. Heard the arguments.

¶45

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶46

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

¶47

ii) To what relief ?

¶48

Point No.i):

¶49

The Defendants are not disputing the fact that they availed the loan from the Applicant bank and executed necessary documents. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the defendants created mortgage in respect of the schedule mentioned properties. On behalf of Applicant, AW.1 is examined and he reiterated the version of applicant bank. The material documents are marked as Ex.A.l to A.33. Even though AW.1 is cross examined by counsel for Defendants, nothing is elicited to disprove the contention of the Applicant. Various documents by the AW.1 clearly indicates that defendants contention nt Bank classified the account as NPA without tl t:? ng uidelines is not tenable. !!^.k JUt 2020 {'r,^{1 0}

¶50

(OA.No.s/202s)

¶51

¶52

The defendants are not disputing the execution of the loan documents. So as per the documents filed by the applicants, it is very clear that the defendants are liable to pay the OA outstanding, as claimed by the Applicant bank. As per the material documents filed by the Applicant bank, it is clear that the Demand promissory note dated 02.08.2017 was signed by the defendant no.1. Similarly the Memorandum of deposit of title deeds, letter of waiver, working capital term loan agreement and overdraft agreement were also signed by the defendants. So considering all the circumstances of the case, I hold that the Applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 to 3.

¶53

Point No.ii)

¶54

In the result, the p resent Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶55

The Defendants No,1lto 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the Applicant Bank a total I sum^r Rs.2,37,4L,O991- (Rupees Two Crores

¶56

Thirty Qeye.n Lakhs Forty I One thousand and Ninety Nine only) 1.e.,'11r ,.i. l- '; ,r l-i^ ir.^{.'itlii</sup> (-l '*'i\ 85,17,486/- in overdraft facility with interest 1 o')d :i,,T "#li''' @11,8Oo/q-Tib fro'om date of application till the date of realization; A r'r,a,,tr,,r.,..i^{t':' :,,;'"'}}

¶57

(oA.No.s/202s)

¶58

b) A sum of Rs.32,29,825/- in cash credit facility with interest @7.50%^p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶59

c) A sum of Rs.19,93,788/- in cash credit facility with interest @9.25olo^p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶60

the Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶61

The applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 &3 and properties of defendants No,1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶65

L4, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶66

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open day of )uly,2026,

¶67

sd/-

¶68

(G. GOPTCHAND)
* PRESIDING OFFICER
O JUL ,F?i
:f€8#""
7

Central Bank of India v. M/S. Sanabill Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S. Sanabill Enterprises

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

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Ooha Traders and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Vempati Sudha Rani

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S.Ismail Traders

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vaibhava Laxmi SHO Group

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Shg Lingayipalli Group