Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Padmavathi Eco Bricks

DRT24 Mar 2026OA/296/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against a partnership firm and its partners. Holding that the bank established its claim, the Tribunal ordered recovery of term loans, GECL facilities, and interest, and directed the sale of hypothecated mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA; Defendant No.1 liable to pay Rs. 1,89,88,259; property sale proceedings and recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Padmavathi Eco Bricks — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24rH DAy OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.296 of 2O25

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Second floor, TSRTC bustand Complex, Koti, Hyderabad, TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sai Padmavathi Eco Bricks, A partnership firm Represented by its^partners, The defendants 2 to 5 herein H. No.2-143136, Choutapally, Mattampally, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 204,

¶9

¶10

Factory at S.No. 1 150/A2, Venkataramapuram Mellacheruvu, Suryapet dist508 204.

¶11

Sri Udatha Veeraiah, s/o Sri Udatha Subbaiah, aged about 69 years, male, occ: business and partner of defendant no.l firm

¶12

H. No.2-143136, Choutapally, Mattampally, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 204.

¶13

Smt Udatha Padmavathi, w/o Sri Udatha Veeraiah, aged about 63 years, female, occ: business and partner of defendant no.1 firm

¶14

24fiABw6

¶15

(oA.No.295/202s)

¶16

H. No,2- 143/36, Choutapally, Mattampally, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 204.

¶17

Sri Udatha Ramprasad, s/o Sri Udatha Veeraiah, aged about 40 years, male, occ: business and partner of defendant no.1 firm, H, No.2- 143136, Choutapally, Mattampally, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 204.

¶18

Smt Udatha Shireesha, s/o Sri Udatha Ramprasad, aged about 33 years, female, occ: business and partner of defendant no.1 firm H. No. 2- 143136, Choutapally, Mattampally, Kodad, Suryapet district - 508 204.

¶19

Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on 17.03.2026 Pronounced on 24.03.2026 Uploaded in website on 24.03.2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for Rs.1,89,88,259l- (Rupees One Crore Eight Thousand Two Hundred and

¶23

onlifl) i.e., 4 itAR 2[28 ,..r^*

¶24

(oA.No.2s61202s)

¶25

A) a sum of Rs.1,71,29,694/- underterm loan with interest @ t4.4eo/o p.a with monthly rests from date of this application till the date of realization;

¶26

B) a sum of Rs.9,02,824/- under GECL facility with interest @ 11.25olo p.a with monthly rests from date of this application till the date of realization;

¶27

C) a sum of Rs.9,55,741l- under GECL(Extension) facility with interest @ 11.25olo^p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

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

¶29

As per the averments in the apprication, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partners / defendants no.2 to 5 availed working capital under cash credit for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and term roan of Rs.120 lakhs vide retter of arrangement dated 04.09.2019. subsequenuy the defendants availed GECL loan of Rs.24 lakhs while continuing existing term loan of Rs.120 lakhs. The defendants No.2 to 5 guaranteed the due repayment of overall facilities of Rs.144 lakhs on 09.06.2020 and executed guarantee agreement. The defendants mortgaged the schedule properties and hypothecated the movables in favour of applicant bank. facilities, the defendants failed to comply the the applicant bank classified the account as p,l fifnofup2a* )nd issued tegat notice dated \O.O4.2O2S. r^"' ,: 3 hu,r,rdr'., 1 !(Jlpnv'ii'!.',:

¶30

(oA. No.296/202s)

¶31

Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶32

Defendant No.1 called absent and set exparte on 20.02.2026.

¶33

Sri P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.34.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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?

¶36

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.A1 to A.34. In 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 entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶37

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant No.1 is liable to pa-y to tne Appricant Bank a totar sum of Rs.1,89,88r25911-.T\Upees One Crore Eighty Nine Lakhs eignti,Eiiht rfloysana:ffi Hundred and Fifty Nine onty) i.e.,

¶38

(oA.No.295l202s)

¶39

a) a sum of Rs.1,71,29,694/- under term loan with interest @ L4.40o/o p.a from date of this application till the date of realization;

¶40

b) a sum of Rs.9,02,824/- under GECL facility with interest @ Ll.25o/o p.a from date of this application till the date of realization;

¶41

c) a sum of Rs.9,55,741/- under GECL(Extension) facility with interest @ 11.25olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶42

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

¶43

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcrrbed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 246 day oJ March, 2026)
sdl-
e<br>(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ittH 2m tr *
9
.rd
\ ..,-.;:r - .. " -',i
'- , .: rnr ! l_. ,

¶49

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER 9

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Padmavathi Eco Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Padmavathi Eco Bricks

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Venkateshwara Power Looms Industry

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rohith Trading Company

Srinath Kusuma versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Varigati Satya Prakash

Canara Bank versus Sri. Dabbeta Rahul

Cyrus Diagnostic Centre Rep by its Managing Partner versus PNB Housing Finance Limited