Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Hotcrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

DRT17 Apr 2026OA/316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Debt Recovery Application filed by State Bank of India against seven respondents for recovery of outstanding dues with interest and costs, allowing the bank to realize the debt from mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Agricultural claim for Rs.6,80,35,087/- with further interest @ 9% p.a. simple from date of application till realization; issuance of recovery certificate.

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

¶1

TN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17rH DAy OF APRII_, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

oA.No.316 0f 2024

¶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. Hotcrete Infrastructure pvt Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director, 6-3-879/B, 2nd floor, greenlands road, G. Pullareddy Building, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 034.

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Plot no.12, Sy.No.15217, Flat no.101, Deccan towers, Raghava Colony, Transport road, Hyderabad - 500 009.

¶12

Mr. P. Ravikanth Reddy, s/o Ramsunder Reddy, aged 44 years, male, H.No.8-2-293 /82/V3L0/ Al A,, MLA colony, Road no.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶13

Sri Paduri Shashikanth, s/o Sri Ramchander, aged major, male, H. No.8 -2-293/82/L/ 3LO/ A/ A,, MLA colony, Road no.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

fS"'""ux
H lTAPR'zm
W*#

¶15

(oA.No.316/2024)

¶16

Smt Perati Swetha Reddy, Wo^Sri Shashikanth, Aged 37years, female, H.No.8-2-293 / B2/L/3t0/ A/ A,, MLA colony, Road no.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶17

Smt Paduri Karuna, Wo^{Sri Ramachander} Reddy, Aged 65 years/ female, H. No.8-2-293 /821L/3L0 I A/ A,, MLA colony, Road no.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶18

Sri Yugandhar Thummala, s/o Sri T. Nageswar Rao, aged 43 years, male, H,No.8-2-293 / 82/Jlill t92, Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building society Ltd, Hyderabad.

¶19

Sri G. Srividya Reddy, w/o Sri Ravikanth Reddy, aged 41 years, male,

¶20

H, No. 8-2- 29 3 / 82 / J[II/ L92, Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building society Ltd, Hyderabad.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the Parties:

¶23

For the Applicant

¶24

Defendants No.1 to 5 and 7

Defendant no.6

Orders reserved on

Pronounced on

Uploaded i
*
1 t apn zwt
\eifr?3r?,

¶29

Sri C. Prabhakar

¶30

Sri B. Sreenivasa Reddy

Exparte

t3.04.2026

L7.04.2026

t7.04.2026

(oA.No.315/2024)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6,gO,35,Og7l- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Lakhs Thirty Five thousand and Eighty Seven only ) with further interest @ L7.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of and hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedules "I to IX" to OA.

¶38

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a company / principal borrower. Defendants no.l,2 4 to 7 are mortgagors and defendants no.2 & 4 to 7 stood as guarantors avaired cash credit of Rs.30.00 crores, bank guarantee of Rs.2.5 Crores and letter of credit Rs.2.50 crores in total Rs'35'00 crores. Defendant no.2 representing defendant no.1 Company executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated0l'01'2016. Defendants no.2 & 5 executed guarantee agreement dated 01.01.2016. Defendant no.6 created equitable mortgage on 30.12.2015 by way of deposit of sare deed no.231gl2001 dated 29.6.2001 in respect of oA schedure property II. Defendant no.5 create equitable mortgage on 30.12.2015 by way of deposit of sale

¶39

deed no. 10.06.2013 in respect of OA schedule .1 & 2 created mortgage of schedule d defendant no.4 created mortgage of

¶40

(oA.No.316/2024)

¶41

schedule VIII property and defendant no.6 created mortgage of schedule property No.IX. The limit of Rs.35.00 crores was enhanced to Rs.45.00 crores and extended the mortgages. The defendants mortgaged the immovable properties and hypothecated movables in favour of Appricant bank. It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants avaired the said roan facirities and faired to keep up the repayment schedure, as such the account was crassified as NpA and issued legal notice dated Lg.07.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the Applicant bank issued notices, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.6,gO,gS,Og7/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Lakhs Thirtl, Five thousand and Eighty Seven onty ) with further interest @ 17.250/o p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶42

The Defendants No.1,3,4 and 5 filed written statement and defendants no'2 & 7 adopted the same. The defendants denied the averments made in oA. The defendants denied the execution of documents in favour of applicant bank. It is contended that the applicant bank obtained signatures of defendants on blank printed documents as well

¶43

as on bl s further contended that the applicant bank .nar,e6,ilro;&. ; as penalties and modified the EMIs 17 ?n?fr i; A Pfl 2[26 ? ,J 11^.'.:t twm -&'^{.r; .'.ril} rrvOg'^rt-^''.r rrnr '!^1'

¶44

(oA.No.315/202a)

¶45

without consent of the defendants herein. Hence prayed for dismissar of oA.

¶46

The defendants relied upon the Judgement passed by the Hon'ble DRAT in Madhukar R Bhangay Vs State Bank of India in dairy no.195/2019 wherein future rate of interest was awarded @90lo p.a simple.

¶47

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶48

Heard the arguments.

¶49

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶50

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in oA against the defendants ?

¶51

ii) To what relief ?

¶52

Point No.i):

¶53

Mr. R. Loganathan, Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.49 are marked through AW.1. Defendants No.1,3,5

¶54

examined
DW.2 & DW.3 and not filed any
docume
&
ltAPI.lla.
;
WPl

¶55

(oA.No.316/2024)

¶56

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the defendants no.1,3 & 5 examined themselves as DW.1,DW.2, DW.3 and not filed any documents, their evidence is in noway helpful to them. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not forow the RBI guiderines and that the present oA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes crear that a, the rerevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are riabre to pay the oA craim. considering ail the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entifled to craim the oA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants,

¶57

Point No.ii)

¶58

In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶59

The Defendants No.1 to 7 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to
Appli
of Rs.6,8O,3S,Og7 l- (Rupees Six Crores
d<br>E Lakh irty
d and Eighty Seven only ) with
17 *
RPR 'll'F q'

¶60

(oA.No.316/2024)

¶61

further interest @ 9olo p.a simpre from date of apprication tilr the date of realization.

¶62

The applicant bank is entitred to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule "I to IX" to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶63

10' The Applicant bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 7 and properties of defendant no.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

Issue Recovery certiflcate accordingly.

¶67

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶68

(Dictated 60 the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17h day of Aptit, 2026)

¶69

sd/-

¶70

.#
1 7 APn tME
Sr,*"*S

¶71

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Hotcrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Hotcrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Vattikuti Sridevi

Canara Bank versus M/S. Karnem Upender

Smt Koheer Vanitha versus Punjab National Bank

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Veeramaneni Someshwar Rao

Intelligentia Mansions Private Limited versus Asset Reconstructions Co. India Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ryn Enterprises