Allowed

State Bank of India v. Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

DRT8 Sept 2026OA/375/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for debt recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the claim of State Bank of India for Rs.40,02,304.00 against a proprietorship firm and its guarantor who defaulted on a term loan and cash credit despite legal notices and classified the account as NPA.

What did the court decide?

Directing Defendants to pay Rs.40,02,304.00 with 13.15% p.a. interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; directing costs.

State Bank of India versus Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OSth DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 375 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank Of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch - | Koti,2nd Floor

¶6

T.G. R.T.C Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex,

¶7

Koti, Hyderabad - 500095,

¶8

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Khaja Ladies Tailors And Cloth Center, Rep. by its Proprietor Khaja Bee,

¶12

H. No. 20-92/1, Palkapally Road, Near Laxmi Talkies, Achampet Nagarkurnool - 509376

¶13

And also at:

¶14

Rlo. 21 -51, Maruthi Nagar,
Achampet,
Nagarkurnool - 509 376
6%%
$., S '$
: oB$Pzrl$ I
'3r
',,rt, * ,.ft "1i.i
'Rlhr*"'"'"#

¶15

(OA. No. 37512026)

¶16

Khaja Bee, D/o Md. Shareef Miya Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 21-51, Maruthi Nagar, Achampet, Nagarkurnool - 5093760 And also at: H. No. 20-92/1, Palkapally Road, Near Laxmi Talkies, Achampet Nagarkurnool - 509376 Defendants Counsel for the parties : For The Applicant B. Ramana Kumari For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 03.09.2026 Pronounced on 08.09.2026 Upload in website on 08.09.2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.40,02,304.00. Ps. ( Rupees Fofi Three Hundred and Four Only) i.e a

¶19

(oA. No. 37512025)

¶20

(i) Rs.33,96,670.00 Ps. under the Term Loan account with rate of interest @13.15%o p.a with monthly rests from 07.06.2026 till the date of realization,

¶21

(ii) Rs.6,05,634.00 Ps. under the cash credit loan account with rate of interest @13.15%o p.a with monthly rests from 07.06.2026 till the date of realization.

¶22

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant no.^'1 is a Proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant no. 2 availed cash credit loan facility of Rs.5.50 Lakhs with interest and Term Loan of Rs.38.50 Lakhs and executed Agreement of Loan Cum Hypothecation dated 06.06.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 2 stood as a Guarantor in the loan facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 06.06.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the Defendants failed to comply the terms 9! sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account:?I-NPA. s,n^'24.1 I .2025 and issued Legal Notice dated 0, 0$2026'.r,b the chfendants. lnspite of several requests r -:'rY , . 'i' BSill^1i:! "^li 5 . , :,). ;' .-:1 'i' r';:- * l ,.-.^i1' 1,.. -.i;. .}r '.,,-,';.;r,)-*; -":-''it' ,,. . ....,.,'' '; * "tt,r.,,.", 't't{

¶24

(oA. No. 37sl2026)

¶25

and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 03.09.2026.

¶27

Sri. S. Prathik Yadav, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.'l and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶30

Defendant 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.11. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA agalnst the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶31

(OA. No. 37sl2026)

¶32

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

¶33

The Defendants no. 1 and2 is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.40,02,304.00. Ps. ( Rupees Forty Lakhs Two Thousand Three Hundred and Four Only) i.easumof-

¶34

(i) Rs.33,96,670.00 Ps. under the Term Loan account with rate of interest @13.15o/o p.a from 07.06.2026 till the date of realization,

¶35

( ii) Rs.6,05,634.00 Ps. under the cash credit loan account with rate of interest @13.15Yo p.a from 07.06.2026 till the date of realization.

¶36

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the schedule of Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due

¶38

to proceed against the person and no. 2 and properties of Defendant No.¹ of the debt due.

¶39

to the costs of the OA. 'tr:

¶40

(oA. No. 37sl2026)

¶41

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

¶42

'13. lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this theoSrh day of Sep , 2026)

¶45

sd/-

¶46

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶47

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

Y'**

State Bank of India v. Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ritish Rao Regulapati

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Srinivasulu Reddy

Mrs Uma Vani Indukuri versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohd.Manzoor Ahmed

Hdfc Bank versus Baljeguden Mohan

State Bank of India versus Foot Designers Rep by Its Proprietor Mohd Abdul Majid