Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Arca Diagnostics

DRT12 Jan 2026OA/38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Debt Recovery Tribunal application filed by State Bank of India against the firm M/s. Arca Diagnostics and its partners/guarantors for recovery of Rs.6.66 Crores. The court held the defendants liable and authorized the bank to proceed against mortgaged properties and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs.6.66 Crores with interest; permission to proceed against mortgaged properties and assets of firm and guarantors; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arca Diagnostics — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12rH DAy OF JANUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.38 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Arca Diagnostics, A partnership firm

¶10

Represented by its partners The defendants no.2 to 5 herein Plot no.3&4, Sy.No. 52-56, Ground and first floor,

¶11

Splendour complex,

¶12

H.no.5-5-165/2/Cr & 5-5- L6S/Z/FF,

¶13

Ward no.5, Sahebnagar Khurd, Near panama Junction, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 70.

¶14

Sri Sali Prasada Rao, s/o Sri S. kotaiah, aged about 51 years,

¶15

occ: business & partner of defendant no.1 firm flat no.401, Sri S.V. Brinda Keshava Nilayam, Keshava Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad - 500 092.

¶16

(oA.No.38/2024)

¶17

¶18

H.No.2-4-123 /E, flat no.502, Veeramani Sri Laxmi Apartment, Swaroopnagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy district - 500 039.

¶19

¶20

Flat no.302, Lake view Apartments, Kaviraj nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam - 507 002.

¶21

¶22

Plot no.71, Phase-II,^padmavathi Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad - 92.

¶23

Mr. Chittipolu Venkatesham, s/o Sri S. Satnaiah,

¶24

aged about 55 years, occ: business and partner of defendant no.1 firm, plot no.107, block-B, Hima Sai Pujitha Apartments, Doctors colony, Kothapet Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500 035.

¶25

4, Sri Ireni Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, s/o Sri I. Venkat Ramulu, aged about 48 years, occ: business and partner of 1st defendant firm, Flat no.A-81, H.No.2-20-3, Sri Srinivas Heights, Adarsh nagar, Chilukanagar road, Uppal, Ranga Reddy district - 500 039.

¶26

¶27

H.No. 12-5-123, flat no.404, SV Sai Srinivasam Residency, Above Indian Bank, Moosapet, Balangar, Hyderabad - S00 01

¶28

Sri Marredi Srinivas Reddy, 3 ;ltt nrn S/o Sri M. Pratap Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: business and partner

¶29

(oA.No.38/202a)

¶30

Of defendant no.1 flrm, H. No.9- 1 10/1 t3 / 166/s, Plot no.10B, gayathri nagar, Road no.13, Opp Community Hall, Boduppal, Hyderabad - 92.

¶31

Smt Sali Nagendramma, Wo^Sri Sali Prasada Rao, Aged about 45 years, occ:housewife, Flat no.401, S.V. Brindavanam Keshava Nilayam, Keshava nagar Coloy, Bodduppal, Hyderabad - 500 092.

¶32

H.No.2-4-123 lE, flat no.502, Veeramani Sri Laxmi Apartment, Swaroopnagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy district - 500 039.

¶33

¶34

Flat no.302, Lake view Apartments, Kaviraj nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam - 507 OO2.

¶35

¶36

Plot no.71, Phase-II,^padmavathi Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad - 92.

¶37

¶38

Flat no.201, Block-A, AVL's Ramya Residency, Sy.No.s150 & 151, Boduppal village, Hyderabad - 500 092. Defendants

¶39

Counsel for the Parties: ,i rd\ For the Applicantr Prabhakar Sarma .& * Defendants No.1 to 'l Sri "[J Orders reserved on o 1.01" 2026

¶40

(oA.No.38/2024)

¶41

Pronounced on : t2.0t.2026 Uploaded in website on : 12.0L.2026

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6,66r6O,255/- (Rupees Six Crores Sixty Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five only) with interest @ 11.65% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedules "A to D" to OA.

¶44

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 firm represented by its paftners, the defendants no. 2 to 5 availed term loan of Rs.600 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 31.01.2022 and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation. Defendants no.2 to 6 guaranteed the repayment of said loan and executed guarantee agreement. Defendant no.4 created equitable mortgage of schedule properties^..A &8,, and deposited the original Regd gift settlement deed document no.tllT/2016 dated 04.02.20t6 and Regd Sale deed no.13808/2006 . Defendant no.6 created equitable mortgage of scrreoure#%6o-&rty, "C'''lnd:q€posited the originat Regd sate deed ii fN ( ''r',, i i ,J .H. 27.tz.zo2t. Derendant no.1 oo.rr#Sn \2g2ot!.(2g?, ,^{stocks equipment} etc as

¶45

(oA.No.38/202a)

¶46

mentioned in the schedule "D" to oA. 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. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 27.1L.2023, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.6r66r6o,2551- (Rupees six crores sixty six Lakhs sixty Thousand rwo Hundred and Fifty Five only) with interest @ 11.650lo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶47

The Defendant No.3,4 and 5 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted by the defendants that the OA is barred by limitation and also contended that the Applicant bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings. It is further submitted that the Applicant bank did not adhere to the guidelines of RBI. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶48

l:": l' '
3. I have perused the documents.platg$rnn '('"- regord.
,. .'t" ''.r. j .
tl;' '\t
(." ,n i,,. '
i
4. Heard the arguments. t.: t 3 iiitj ii.r e'
.,: r. -,, : .:,. :..,.:i : .:
' "1.
:),
5. Now, the points that arise for ionsiberation are: .
'.,:..'..
: : !-

¶49

(oA.No.38/2024)

¶50

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

¶51

ii) To what relief ?

¶52

Point No.i):

¶53

Mr. S. Mishra, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.25 are marked through AW.1. Defendants No.3, 4 and 5 examined themselves as DW.1, DW.2 and DW.3 but not filed any documents.

¶54

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the defendants no.3,4 and 5 examined themselves as DW.1, DW.2 and DW.3 but not filed any documents, their evidence is in noway helpful to them. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines 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 clear that all the relevant 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. e1 the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay

¶55

rl '- ilaim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that nse tdk the defendants is not tenable. Hence the

¶56

Ltpricant'utnt,is to claim the OA amount from defendants. 6

¶57

(oA.No.38/2024)

¶58

Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶59

Point No.ii)

¶60

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

¶61

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.6,66,60,2551- (Rupees Six Crores Sixty Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five only) with interest @ 11.650lo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶62

The Appricant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as mentioned in the OA towards realisation of the debt due;

¶63

10' The Applicant bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 6 and properties of defendant no,1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶64

The Appl led to the costs of the OA.

¶65

The nt shall file a emo within two weeks from the date * of oflonde4y ril)t \r

¶66

(OA.No.38/2024)

¶67

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶68

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶69

lOictated to the e.1., by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶70

sdl-
(G. GOPICHAND)
OFFICER

¶71

State Bank of India v. M/S. Arca Diagnostics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Arca Diagnostics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Nakshtra Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mallepogu Nadipi Sunkanna

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dasari Suresh

Canara Bank versus M/S.Jyothi Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Venkateshwara Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Naveen Textiles