Allowed

State Bank of India v. S.R. Enterprises

DRT3 Jul 2026OA/226/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this OA, the OTP Bank claimed recovery of dues totaling Rs. 47.40 lakhs along with interest and future realization against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor who availed a term loan. The bank filed an O.avery under limit of DRT to realize the debt. Since defendants remained absent, Applicant Bank produced evidence of loan agreement and hypothecation. The court found the case meritoriously

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 47,40,526.00 with future interest at 14.4% p.a. with monthly rests from 14.03.2026 till realization. The bank is entitled to proceed against

State Bank of India versus S.R. Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O3'.d DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

OA. No. 226 OF 2026

¶5

Between .

¶6

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery^Branch-1, 2nd floor, TS RTC Bus^{Terminal Complex} (Commuter AmenitY Centre) Koti, Hyderabad-500095 Represented by^{its Chief Manager}

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s.S.R.EnterPrises, Rep.by its ProPrietor Sri. Dharavath^Suresh, Major, Male, Teacher's ColonY,^Oddugudem, Palvancha, Kothagudem,^{TS - 507115} 2. Sri. Dharavath^Suresh, S/o.Sri.Chander, Major, Male, R/o.H.No.9-3-12211 , Oddugudem,^Palvancha, Bhadradri, Defendants Kothagudem^District-507 c:t'+''4?;"/ .._t

¶10

(OA. No. 22612026)

¶11

Counsel for the parties :

¶12

For The Applicant Sri. P.V. Satyanaryana For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 01.07.2026 Pronounced on 03.07.2026 Upload in website on 03.07.2026

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 47,40,526.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Six Only) with future rate of interest @14.4o/o p.a with monthly rests from 14.03-2026 tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶15

the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank Defendant no. 1 is a proprietorship firm represented or Defendant No. 2 availed Term loan facility of repayable in 60 EMI's of Rs.81,360t with %o p.a and executed necessary documents such

¶16

loA.^No.226/2026)

¶17

as Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation^{dated 07.05.2024in} favor of the Applicant Bank. The^{Defendant No. 2 stood as a} Guarantor and executed Guarantee^{Agreementdated} 07.05.2024 in favor of the Applicant^{Bank. The Defendants} hypothecated movables morefully^{mentioned in Scheduleof} property to OA and executed Agreement^{of Loancum} Hypothecation dated 07.05.2024 in^{favor of the Applicant} Bank.. After availing the^{loan facility, the defendantsfailed to} comply the terms of sanction,^{hence the applicant bank classified} the account as^NPA on^{11.04.2025 and issued Legalnotice} dated 18.02.2026 to^{the defendants. lnspiteof several requests} and demands, the defendants^{did not clear the outstanding'} Hence this OA.

¶18

Defendants called^{absent and set exparte on 01.07.2026'}

¶19

Smt. K. Geetha^{Lakshmi, Manager of the ApplicantBank} examinedherselfasAW.landexhibitedrelevantdocuments, which are marked^{as Ex.A.1 to A.7.}

¶20

Heard the Ld.^{Counsel for the ApplicantBank'}

¶21

is whether the^APPlicant

¶22

b. The point that arise^{for consideration} bank the claim made in the OA against^the

¶23

.'ra
7

¶24

(oA. No.226/20261

¶25

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.7. 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.

¶26

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

¶27

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs. 47,40,526.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Six Only) with future rate of interest @14/% p.a 'from 14.03.2026 till the date of realization.

¶28

¶29

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

¶31

to proceed against the person nd * No. 2 and properfies of realization of the debt due.

¶32

lOA.^No.226/2026)

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the^{parties concerned.}

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected signed and^{pronouncedby mein the open court on} this the 03'd day of Jul, 2026)

¶38

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

.,.6<br>;, tu *b 'n<br>iij 0 3 JrrL 2fl0 :
trYq. tS$u,,..,.,'w,..r
"
-cfP..i'' ':
".'.:-:l '

¶40

a-1.*"-^
:-fifg|rftr

State Bank of India v. S.R. Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. S.R. Enterprises

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. Nandini Powerloom Industry

Indian Bank versus M/S. Auroflow Infra Realty Pvt. Ltd.

Gutha Amith Kumar versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda versus Thadakamalla Nagamani

Union Bank of India versus Ushasri Cotton Ginning Mills Private Limited

Karur Vysya Bank versus D.G. Enterprises