Allowed

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

DRT8 Sept 2026OA/390/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Recovery Tribunal application filed by State Bank of India against two Defendants for a total loan sum of Rs.42,30,884.00 along with future interest and costs, treating them as jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.42,30,884.00 with future interest; Applicant Bank directed to file cost memo and issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Foot Designers Rep by… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTth DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No.390 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TS RTC Bus Terminal Complex (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad

¶6

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s.Foot Designers, rep.by its Proprietor Moh.AbdulMajid, Male, Major,

¶10

D.No.1-8-290,

¶11

Opp: M.M.Court, Near SBI Bhongir, Main Road, Yadadri

¶12

Bhongiri District - 5081^'16.

¶13

Mohd. Abdul Majid, S/o.Mohd. Abdul Mujeeb, Male, Major. R/o.D.No.1-8-290, Opp: M.M.Court, SBI Bhongir, Main Road, Yadadri Bhongiri District - 508116.

¶14

(oA. No. 390/2026)

¶15

Counsel for the parties .

¶16

For The Applicant Sri. P.V. Satyanarayana For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 01.09.2026 Pronounced on 07.09.2026 Upload in website on 08.09.2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.42,30,884.00. Ps (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Four Only) i.e a sum of -

¶19

(i) Rs.30,39,867.00 Ps. under the Cash credit Loan account with future rate of interest @14.00o/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization,

¶20

(ii)

¶21

of this application till the date of realization,

¶22

for sale of Mortgaged Properties Schedule of Property to OA. B s lrBrif,qn 2

¶23

(oA. No. 390/2026)

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendants availed Drop-Line OD loan facility of Rs.34,50,000/- with interest and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 18.07.2018 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 21.03.2020 and deposited Registered Sale Deed in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Overdraft loan facility of Rs.10.00 Lakhs with interest and executed loan documents in favor of the applicant bank. The Defendants renewed and enhanced the 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 31.05.2025 and issued Demand Notice dated 02.06.2025 and Legal Notice dated 09.06.2026 lo the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 01.09.2026.

¶26

Bank examined which are marked as

¶27

6 Heard the . coJh&rffi?

¶28

(oA. No. 390/2026)

¶29

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?

¶30

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.20. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.42,30,884.00. Ps (Rupees Fofi Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Four Only) i.e a sum of -

¶33

(i) Rs.30,39,867.00 Ps. under the Cash credit Loan account with future rate of interest @14.00Yo p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization,

¶34

1,91,017.00 Ps. under the OD/Term Loan account with of interest @12.20o/o p.a from the date of this till the date of realization

¶35

¶36

(oA. No. 390/2025)

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of Sep , 2026)

¶44

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

H"1>a.-A
.': .. ii'iittlli; v
i.- 1 i-. i,'f:r',1 _,; aj

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

State Bank of India versus Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

Hdfc Bank versus Baljeguden Mohan