Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sirvi Marketing

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/266/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the applicant bank against defendants for recovery of a loan principal of Rs.1,06,38,233/- along with interest and proceeding against hypothecated movables, noting the defendants did not dispute execution of loan documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,06,38,233/- with interest; allowance of OA and issuance of recovery certificate.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18TH^{DAY OF AUGUST,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.266 of 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sirvi Marketing,

¶10

Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Sohanlal Chowdhary, shed no.D3l2, Door no.1-6-46/15, Muthyam Reddy Estate, Kanajiguda, Alwal, Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500 015.

¶11

Sri Sohanlal Chowdhary, S/o Mr. mangilal, aged major, Occ: business,^plot no.B, Uma nagar, Old Airport road, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011.

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For defendants

Sri V. Raghu

Sri M.S. Thirunathanx*

¶17

** may be read as K. Kalyan Chakravarthy

¶18

(oA. No.266/202s)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,06,38,233l- (Rupees One Crore

¶21

Six Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two hundred and Thirty Three only) i.e.,

¶22

a) A sum of Rs.82,70,048/- under Account no.38290362273 with further interest @11.95% p.a with monthly rests from 27.05.2025 till the date of realization;

¶23

b) A sum of Rs.23,68,185/- under Account no.40609124407 with further interest @10.75% p.a with monthly rests from 27.O5.2025 till the date of realization;

¶24

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 which is a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed MSME-CC facility of Rs.150.00 lakhs on 26.L2.2019 and cash collateral of Rs.38.00 lakhs in form of fixed deposit. The defendants executed letter of arrangement, agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement. Subsequently the cash credit limit of Rs.150.00 lakhs was enhanced to Rs.200 lakhs and efecuted supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation ,dated 13.05.2020. The defendants hypothecated the machinery adr mentionijE';in schedule to OA and

¶26

.,.: ,;'i ..r. .'^.'.j '\ " .:. '.',;' "1.^{.- ij,} I;, ii'-,1 .'1^{. :} -"-:::-.--=:-_

¶27

(OA, No.266/202s)

¶28

executed supplementary hypothecation and personal guarantee in favour of Applicant bank. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on 04.L2.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 04.06.2025, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.1,06,38,233l- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two hundred and Thirty Three only) (Rs.82,7O,O48/+ Rs.23,68,L851-) with further interest @ 11.95olo p.a and @10.75%^p.a respectively with monthly rests from 27.05.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶29

The Defendants filed wriften statement admitting that they availed cash credit loans from the Applicant bank and the loan limits were renewed/ enhanced from time to time. The contention of the defendants is that the Applicant bank charged exorbitant interest on overheads under various heads e.9., late payment fee, finance charges on retail, finance charges on BT etc. Hence^prayed for dismissal of oA.

¶30

I have perused the placed
ri-
::j 1.-'": "l
",1F.3s.:^3r :u 1: : L J -,',i. rl.;1 ,.

¶31

(oA. No.2661202s)

¶32

-8.

¶33

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 composite hypothecation agreement was signed by the defendant no.1. Similarly the agreement of loan cum hypothecation, letter of undertaking, supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 13.05.2020 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 aqainst the defendants No.1 to 8.

¶34

Point No.ii)

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.1ro6,38,233l- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two hundred and

¶38

Thirty Three only) i.e.,

¶39

a) A sum of Rs.82,70,048/- under Account no.38290362273 with -.^{' -l ' ,_ ..r --} further interest @11.,959p..[Hrfropr,27.05.2025 lill the date of ,/^," ', i3l'r,^',' ,i^.,. realization; ,;,' .1.. i" t.i; i, j'- ij +- I E et.:r) ".^- "nn F,r...)i r- tl .: ..j /.i ,-t <rr rr i ," .,.j"..\a # \ .- !:Vr.,..,.-;',:,)';j*r,

¶40

(oA. No.265/202s)

¶41

' '4. Heard the arguments.

¶42

Mrs.^{KalyaniRathod,Manager / AW'1 is examinedon behalf of the} Applicant'^{Exhibits A.1 to A'28 are marked through AW'1' Defendant} No.2 examined^{himselfas DVJ'1and Exhibit B'1to B'B is filed by him'}

¶43

Now, the^{points that arise for consideration are:}

¶44

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

¶45

ii) To what^relief?

¶46

Point No.i):

¶47

The Defendants^{are not disputingthe fact that they availedthe} loan from^{the Applicant bank and executed necessary documents'} There is also^{no disputeregardingthe fact that the defendants} created hypothecation^{in respect of the schedule mentioned} movables. On^{behalf of Applicant'AW'1is examined and he} reiterated^{the version of applicant bank' The materialdocuments} Even though^{AW.1 is cross}

¶48

are marked^{as Ex.A.1 to A'28'} examined by^{counselfor Defendants' nothing is elicitedto} disprove^{the contentionof the Applicant' Various documents} dicates^{that defendants contention}

¶49

exhibited^{bY the AW.1 cl} is not tenable.

¶50

that APPlicant^Bank

¶51

(oA. No.2651202s)

¶52

b) A sum of Rs.23,68,185/under Account no.40608124407 with further interest @ 10.75% p.a from 27.05.2025 till the date of realization;

¶53

the Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the^hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards^{realization of} the debt due.

¶54

The applicant bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainst the personand} properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendants No.1^firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶55

The Applicant Bank^is entitled^{to the costs of the OA.}

¶56

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

¶57

t4. Issue Recovery certificate^accordingly.

in the open

sdl -

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

onr-t nyp"eiii'. "

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sirvi Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sirvi Marketing

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

South Indian Bank versus Ms. Mamidala Kavitha

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mrs. Jayasudha Routhu

M/S. Uday Enterprises versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mrs.Chapa Ramana

S Charishma versus Hdfc Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Abhinav Industries