Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Chehak Industries

DRT5 May 2026OA/3/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against its defaulters. The bank claimed dues under CC and Term Loans. Finding the bank established its case, the Tribunal ordered payment of principal, future interest, costs, and authorization to proceed against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.9,24,51,048.89 with future interest. Authorized sale of mortgaged properties. Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Chehak Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE Osth DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADt GOptCHAND, pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No.03 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Management Branch - ll, D.No. 3-4-1 01 3/A, First Floor, CAC, TSRTC Bus Station, Kacheguda Hyderabad - 500 027 Represented by its Constituted Attorney

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Chehak lndustries, A Partnership Firm, Represent by its Partners 6-12-7 1 I 1, Namdevwada, Behind Vittaleshwar Temple,

¶9

Nizamabad - 503 001

¶10

Also at -

¶11

Sy. No.208/8, Munipaaly Village, Jakranpally Mandal,

¶12

(OA. No.03/2026)

¶13

Smt. Snehal Bhavesh Thakker, Wo. Mr. Bhavesh C Thakker, 6-12-7 1 I 1, Namdevwada, Behind Vittaleshwar Temple, Nizamabad - 503 001.

¶14

Also at -

¶15

Flat No. 807, in 8th Floor, WestWing, Block C of Shwetha Aryan, Bearing Do. No. O2-092tBtC-A07, Pipeline Road, Jeedimefla, Quthbullapur (MDL), Medchal- Malkajgiri (Dist), Telangana - 500 055.

¶16

Also at -

¶17

Flat No. 1^'10, Block - A, Ashoka Avenue, Near Baswa Garden, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 001

¶18

Smt. Neeta Thakker, Wo Hasmukh Thakkar, H.No.6-2-157122, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶19

Also at -

¶20

rf Behi r Temple, * Niza bad - 1. 05 i{.0Y 'tlz[

¶21

(oA. No.03/2026)

¶22

Sri. Bhavesh Kumar Thakkar, S/o Chandrakanth Laxmidas Thakkar, 6-1 2-7 1 I 1, Namdevwada, Behind Vitta leshwar Temple, Nizamabad - 503 001.

¶23

6 Sri. Chandrakanth Laxmidas Thakkar, S/o Laxmidas Thakkar, H.No.6-2-157122, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002

¶24

Defendants

¶25

Counsel for the parties :

¶26

For The Applicant Alluri Krishnam Raju For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 24.04.2026 Pronounced on 05.05.2026 Upload in website on 06.05.2026

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants of a total sum of Rs.9,24,51,048.89 Ps. (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty One Thousand and and Paise Eighty Nine Only) i.e a sum of - r-e% * ll5ilAY7tPJ * fu,,**l-W

¶29

(oA. No.03/2026)

¶30

(i) Rs.6,55,58,243.01 Ps under CC account;

¶31

(ii) Rs.1,14,50,296.77 Ps under Term Loan account;

¶32

(ii) Rs.76,75,647.53 Ps under Term Loan account;

¶33

(ii) Rs.77,66,851.58 Ps underTerm Loan account;

¶34

together with future interest @ 13.40o/o p.a with monthly rests from 20.09.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties as mentioned in the Schedules of property A to D to OA.

¶35

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. I is a^partnership Firm represented by its Partner Defendants No. 2 and 3 availed Term loan facility of Rs.195.00 Lakhs and Cash credit limit of Rs.5.00 Lakhs and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 31 .08.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Term loan facility ll of Rs.100.00 Lakhs and executed Supplemental Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 21 .10.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Term loan facility lll of Rs.90.00 Lakhs and executed Supplemental Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 31 .07.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 stood as a Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement 21.10.2022, 12.01.2023 and 3'1.07.2023 in favor of the Bank. The Defendants No. 4 and 5 created Equitable morefully mentioned in Schedule of property B to D to

¶37

&,b,""',,..$,
iu.1flr,4

¶38

(oA. No.03/2026)

¶39

the OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Tiile deeds dated 24.12.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank and deposited Original Sale deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 1 represented by its partners renewed and enhanced the above mentioned loan facilities from to time and executed necessary loan documents in favor of the Applicant Bank and extended the mortgaged mentioned in Schedule Property B to D and executed Memorandum of Extensions of mortgaged by Deposit of Tifle deeds dated Ol .O1.ZO23 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 01.05.2025 and issued Legal notice dated^.16.0g.2025 and Demand Notice dated 04.09.2025 under Sction 13(2) of SARFAET Act, 2002 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶40

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 24.04.2026.

¶41

Sri. S Arun Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A27

¶42

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶43

ffi
*
I'IAY T7f,

¶44

(OA. No. 03/202G)

¶45

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?

¶46

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A. 1 to 4.27. ln 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 entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶47

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs. as under :

¶48

The Defendants No. 1 to 5 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.9,24,51,04g.g9 ps. (Rupees Nine Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty One Thousand and Forty Eight and paise Eighty Nine Only) i.e a sum of-

¶49

(i) Rs.6,55,58,243.01 Ps under CC account;

¶50

(ii) Rs.1,14,50,296.77 Ps under Term Loan account;

¶51

(ii) Rs.76,75,647.53 Ps under Term Loan account;

¶52

,,.,r(ii)-Rs.77,66,861.58^{Ps under TermLoan account;}

¶53

future interest @ 13.40o/o p.a from 20.09.2025 till lization

¶54

(oA. No.03/2025)

¶55

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties as mentioned in the Schedules of property A to D to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶56

'10. The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the

¶57

person and properties of defendants No. 2 to 5 and properties of Defendant no. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶58

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶59

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

¶60

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶61

14 Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶62

(oictated to-the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05h day of [/tay, 2026)

¶63

-"q*
F%.q
P--B
*
*ll
6
f,lAy ,ff7F *i-..
rO.
5.e
(.t.'Jt ."--".,q-Ii
't+, rfRffw

¶64

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRES!D!NG OFF!CER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Chehak Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Chehak 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

Kyramkonda Kanaka Raju versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Banothu Jayasinga Raju versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Mr Ravulapally Ravichandra versus Union Bank of India

M/S.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development versus M/S. Navajeevan Organisation

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Bharath Power Looms Industry