Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Seed Proceesing Plant

DRT15 Apr 2026OA/357/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under Section 17 RCT Act for recovery of loan dues, the DRT allowed the bank's claim. The court found the defendants liable for a total sum of Rs. 1,48,14,34,422 with interest, rejecting the defense of limitation.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,48,14,34,422 with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and personal assets for realization.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Seed… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.357 ol2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

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

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Seed^processing plant, Represented by its managing partner Sri Eega Gottumallaiah, male, major, D-2, Industrial Estate, Padmanagar, Karimnagar - 508 001.

¶8

Mr. Eega Gottumallaiah, s/o Narsaiah, male, major, manging partner of M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Seed Processing^plant, R/o flat no.503, Aditya Apartments, Ramnagar, Karimnagar - 505 001.

¶9

Sri Sunkara Vidyasagar, s/o Late Mallaiah, male, major, partner of M/s. Sri Vara Lakshmi Seed Processing Plant, R/o H. No,9-6-84, Ramnagar, Karimnagar - 505 001.

¶10

Defendants

¶11

Counsel for th For the Appl Sri P.V. Satyanarayana Defendants {ry\H^{lSAPnlw '} Sri T. Sridhar Reddy W*#

¶12

(oA.No.3s712022)

¶13

Orders reserved on : 09.04.2026 Pronounced on : L5.04.2026 Uploaded in website on : t5.04.2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,49,431422l- (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only) i.e.,

¶16

a) A sum of Rs.1,21,81 ,757/- in ABL loan limit with interest @ 10.95% p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization ;

¶17

b) A sum of Rs.26,61,665/- in GECL loan limit with interest @ 10.80% p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization;

¶18

and in default for sale of and mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedules^.'A & 8,, to oA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is the partnership firm represented by its partners/ defendants no.2 & 3. The defendants availed ABL loan

¶20

limit of Rs. 20.11.2018 and defendants no.2 & 3 stood \ as gua uarantee agreement for due repayment of nt no.1 executed agreement of loan wH^{ttlPnlW *}

¶21

(oA.No.3s7l2022)

¶22

cum hypothecation dated 20.11.201g in favour of bank. The defendants also availed GECL facility of Rs.25.00 lakh on L7.06.202L and executed necessary security loan documents. The defendants mortgaged the immovable property and hypothecated the schedule mentioned properties in favour of Applicant bank and deposited the tile deeds. 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 01.05.2022 and issued demand notice dated 02.05.2022. 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.1,48A3,4ZZ|- (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Fofi Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only) with interest @ 10.95olo p.a and 10.g0o/o p.a respectively from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶23

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants contended that the OA is barred by Iimitation and denied the execution of documents on 20.11.2018 and L5.72.2020. It is contended that the applicant bank charged

¶24

exorbitant is against to the terms and conditions. defendants paid Rs.1,60,000/- on ,,ofi#oAgo{f.ou of outstanding liability in ABL

¶25

(OA.No.3s712022)

¶26

loan account and Rs,32,000/- towards GECL loan account. Hence

¶27

prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶28

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Heard the arguments.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶31

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

¶32

ii) To what relief ?

¶33

Point No.i):

¶34

Mr. P. Madhav Rao, Manager/ AW,1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.23 are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶35

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 2nd defendant examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendants having taken

¶36

the plea bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that by limitation, failed to place any Moreover, a perusal of the documents makes clear that all the relevant

¶37

(OA.No.3s712022)

¶38

documents are executed by the defendant 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 liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants, Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants,

¶39

Point No.ii)

¶40

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

¶41

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,48143,4221- (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only) i.e.,

¶42

a) A sum of Rs.1,21,81,757/- in ABL loan limit with interest @ 10.95olo

¶43

p.a from date of application till the date of realization ; b)A sum of Rs.26,61,665/- in GECL loan limit with interest @ 10.80o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶44

The k is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged movables as mentioned in the schedule to ,fy towa rds debt due. lrapf,rrw * .\ (.,"::l"r"e$#

¶45

(oA.No.3s7l2022)

¶46

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no,1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated 60 the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15s day of April, 2026)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

6RT-1, HYAEPASI^

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Seed Proceesing Plant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Seed Proceesing Plant

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juhi Mariam Jacob and others versus Auxilo Finanace Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Burra Mahesh

Canara Bank versus M/S. Abhinav Powerloom Industry

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Bharath Furnitures

Bank of India versus M/S. Sunita Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S.Vaagdevi Educational Society