Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Radesh Trading Company

DRT6 Jul 2026OA/341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of an outstanding loan of approximately INR 3.15 crores. The court held the bank established its claim and granted orders for payment, sale of hypothecated movables, and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay INR 3,15,00,439.00 with future interest; bank entitled to realize from hypothecated/mortgaged properties and distribute properties of respondents; Recov

State Bank of India versus M/S. Radesh Trading Company — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O6th DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRES|DtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 341OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia Bhainsa Branch, Bhainsa, Nirmal District Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Radesh Trading Company Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Jadhav Nagendher S/o.Mr. Jadhav Govind Rao Rl o.4-3-3161 I 4, Gopal Nagar, Opposite Geetha Cotton Company Bhainsa,

¶9

Nirmal District 504103

¶10

Mr. Jadhav Nagendher S/o. Mr. Jadhav Govind Rao R/o.4-3-12618A, Santosh Nagar, Near Geeta fuel Bhainsa, Nirmal District 504

¶11

Defendants

¶12

(OA. No. 34112026)

¶13

Counsel for the^parties:

¶14

For The Applicant Mr. A.M. Kiran Kumar For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 03.07.2026 Pronounced on 06.07.2026 Upload in website on 07.07.2026

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 3,16,00,439.00/- (Rupees Three Crores Sixteen Lakhs Four Hundred and Thirty Nine Only) with future rate of interest @11.650/0 p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables .^._,,.r.1-d^{Mortgaged Propertyas mentionedin the Schedule of} 61"B1ooA g {P-^w --i^B+'' 'io'. I S #AS"r frgiaverments in the application, the Applicant Bank '%n .ti5{giioefendant no. 1 is a Proprietorship firm represented '.._Yl.f*8.,r,$l;i$;P;ifprietor^Defendantno. 2 availed Cash credit Loan ,Yot+F#ii$;P/o'prietor ''.t..I; IfufitV of Rs.3.00 Crores with interest and executed necessary

¶17

(oA. No. 341/2026)

¶18

loan documents such as Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 05.08.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 1 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 05.08.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank and deposited original title deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants enhanced the above mentioned loan facilities from time to time and executed necessary loan documents in favor of the applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 27.02.2026 and issued Legal^Notice dated 07.10.2025, 31J2.2025, 31.01.2026 and¹⁷ .O2.2026 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands,^the defendants did not clear the outstanding.^{Hence this OA.}

¶19

Defendants called absent and set^{exparte on 03.07.2026.}

¶20

Sri. Anupam Mishra, Chief^{Managercum Authorized Officerof} the Applicant Bank examined himself^{as AW.1and exhibited} ments, which are marked as Ex.A.1^{to A.15.}

¶21

Z €-6 (& 6neardS Ld I for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

(OA. No. 34112026)

¶23

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?

¶24

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.A.1 to A.15. 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 entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶25

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

¶26

The Defendants no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3,15,00,439.00/(Rupees Three Crores Sixteen Lakhs Four Hundred and Thifi Nine Only) with future rate of interest @ll.650/op.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶27

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property as mentioned ule of Property to the OA towards realization of the

¶28

(OA. No. 341/2026)

¶29

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants no. 2 and properties of Defendants no. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

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

¶34

(Drctated to the P.A., transcnbed by her, corrected signed^{and pronounced by me in the open courton} this the 06ih day ofJul, 2026)

¶35

sd/-
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

o{,;ffiTRUFCOPY

State Bank of India v. M/S. Radesh Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Radesh Trading Company

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 Murakonda Narasimha Rao

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Gmk Enterprises

Sv Agencies Usathish Usunitha versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Janmanjaya Majhi

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bollikonda Renu Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Cheekatla Vinesh Kiran