Allowed

State Bank of India v. Basa Technologies Private Limited

DRT19 Jan 2026OA/209/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by SBI, SARB against a borrower company and guarantors for recovery of an outstanding loan along with interest and penal charges, holding that the bank's evidence was unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

The applicants are directed to pay Rs. 76,59,104/- with interest from 30.04.2025. They are also entitled to proceed against the hypothecated property and respondent properties to recover the due debt.

State Bank of India versus Basa Technologies… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE t9rH DAy OF JANUARY,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2O9 OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, (SARB), 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad. Telangana. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Basa Technologies Private Llmited, CI N : U 273 20TS 202 3 PTC 1720 16 Off:^plot no.315 & 334, subhas Nagar, IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500 055.

¶9

Sri Chandramouli Basa, s/o Basa Ramulu,

¶10

aged about 49 years, occ: business, male, R/o plot no.101, Shiva Parvathi Nilayam, Subhas nagar, Quthbullapur,^{Medchal Malkajgiri} District, TS - 50 055.

¶11

Also at: H.No.7-763/3ltlL, Vinayaknagar, near Shivalayam h Temple, Quthbullapur, Medchalri, Malkajgiri district - 500 055,

¶12

Smt Chandra Kala Basa, w/o Chandramouli Bas,

¶13

(oA.No.209/202s)

¶14

aged about 40^years, occ:business, female, R/o^plot no.101, Shiva Parvathi Nilayam, Subhas nagar, Quthbullapur,^{Medchal Malkajgiri} District, TS - 50 055.

¶15

Also at:

¶16

H.No.7-L63/3/r/7, Vinayaknagar, near Shivalayam Temple, Quthbullapur, MedchalMalkajgiri district - 500 055.

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Parties:

¶19

For the Applicant Smt Tarangini Pisipati For the Defendants Sri D. Sham Sunder Reserved on 09.01.2026 Pronounced on t9.0t.2026 Uploaded in website on 19.0L.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.76,59,1O4/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and four only) with of penal interest @ 2o/o p.a) with

¶22

monthly rests from 30.04.2025.$l the date of realization and in default ,..

¶23

¶24

for sale of^{'hypolhgcqtqdSfpperty} as mentioned in the schedule to OA. ' IJ.".";iit)h r.. i,1

¶25

As'lpe4 the averments in ihe application, the Applicant Bank

¶26

states that defendant no;1.isthe borrower company and defendants company

¶27

(oA.No.209/202s)

¶28

availed business loan of Rs.65.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 14.08.2023. The said facility was secured by hypothecation of all stocks/ receivables more fully described in the schedule to OA. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 3L.07.2024 and issued recall notice dated 29.04,2025. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.76,Sg,LO4l- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and four only) with interest @ 160lo p.a (inclusive of penal interest @ 2o/o p.a) with monthly rests from 30.04.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶29

The Defendants No.1 to 3 filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It is contended that the Applicant bank obtained signatures of defendants on blank printed formats. It is further contended that the applicant bank charged high rate of interest and classified the account as NpA without following the guidelines of RBL Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶30

..1:lr1s$+';',.-

¶31

support of its ctaim, nted evidence affidavit duty " .;r-;#-r& i^l lv&rrUhzm Srit$Prathik Yadav, Manager of Bank as AW,1 and . .'-. {t,/i 3 "?^';:r'|j "'^'::'.;ri! ' 1':'.a! .--.7

¶32

(oA.No.209/202s)

¶33

through him marked 6 documents as Ex.A.1 to A,6. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert has Chief Evidence. In spite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 25.Lt.2025.

¶34

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶36

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

¶37

ii) To what relief ?

¶38

Point No.i):

¶39

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very 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 mfides for establishing that the Applicant bank failed as per the norms,

¶40

¶41

(oA.No.209/202s)

¶42

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.6 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶43

Point No.ii)

¶44

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶45

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.76,S9,1O4l- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and four onty) with interest @ 160lo p.a (inclusive of penal interest @ 2olo p.a) from 30.04.2025ti11 the date of realization.

¶46

B. The Applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the hypothecated property as mentioned in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

Ihe^{Aeillhq;ilFtank is atso entifledto proceed againstthe person} and nrooerties'ffi\endants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1

¶48

1 Sirm,toyf!ffids tion of the debt due.

¶49

¶50

(oA.No.20e l202sl

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶54

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶55

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of Jan,2026)

¶56

sdl-

¶57

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

,#f;,f?i*'l?l-"

State Bank of India v. Basa Technologies Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Basa Technologies Private Limited

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

p srinivasulu versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Indian Bank versus M/S. City Grand Dhotel

Smt Kethavath Neelamma versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Akkishetty Sreelatha

Gaddam Saritheshwar Rao versus Karur Vysya Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ramana . M