Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Maatha Foods Industries

DRT3 Mar 2026OA/42/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Origination Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan of Rs.1,08,97,925/- plus interest from the proprietors of M/s. Maatha Foods Industries. The Tribunal found the claim established despite exparte hearing.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.1,08,97,925/- with interest; Applicant entitled to realize debt from hypothecated movables and properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Maatha Foods Industries — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.42 ot 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, MSME Narsampet branch, Main road, Narsampet, Warangal district, TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s, Maatha Foods Industries, A proprietary concern, Rep by its Proprietor, the 2nd Defendant herein H.No.3-6911, Nagurlapalle, Parshanayak Thanda, Narsampet, Warangal dist-506 132. 2. Sri Korra Raj Kumar, S/o Sri Korra Maniram, Aged about 39 years, male, Occ: business and Proprietor Of 1st defendant H.No.3-35, Nagurlapalle, Parshanayak Thanda, Narsampet, Warangal dist-506 132. Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant G. Prabhakar Sarma For the Defendants lrte Reserved on 2.2 026 03 ilAnw Pronounced on 3.2 026 Uploaded in website on 3.2 026

(oA.No.a2l2026)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,08,97,925/- (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Five only) i.e.,

¶15

a) A sum of Rs.81,07,051/- in term loan account with interest @ ll.4OVo p.a with monthly rests from date of this application till the date of realization ;

¶16

b) A sum of Rs.26,32,7231- in cash credit account with interest @ 11.55o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶17

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant 1 represented by its^proprietor / defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.85.00 lakhs on 27.t0.2023 and executed guarantee agreement, agreement of loan cum hypothecation etc. Again the defendants availed working capital loan under cash credit of rs.25.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 22.5.2025 and executed supplemental agreement. The defendants hypothecated the machinery, stocks, equipments, current assets and other assets etc in .,,"''

¶19

favourr,iof Applicarit banki' After availing the loan facilities, the ,i^,oSuannn

¶20

(oA.No.4212026)

¶21

defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 23.09.2025 and issued legal notice dated 15.10.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA,

¶22

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 24.02.2026.

¶23

sri K. srinivasa Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.17.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

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?

¶26

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.A1 to A.17. In 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 recovertlre-claim made in the oA with future interest and

¶27

.-l ...,f ,' ""i tl'
'11 ,.
i, 0SrtrnZno
1,,
' ',.',,'3'

¶28

(oA.No.4212026)

¶29

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

¶30

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,O8,97,9251- (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Five only) i.e.,

¶31

a)A sum of Rs.81,07,051/-in term loan account with interest @ tL.4oo/op.a from date of this application till the date of realization ;

¶32

b)A sum of Rs.26,32,7231- in cash credit account with interest @

¶33

11.55olo p,a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶34

The Applican, ,unO is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realisation of the debt due.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

,]t
l"'
;
r ].-
0S upg ryr
il
4

¶39

(oA.No.42l2025)

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3'd day of March, 2026)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

0 3 ilAn 2028

State Bank of India v. M/S. Maatha Foods Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Maatha Foods Industries

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vigneswara Textiles

Supriya Bandam versus Cholamandalam Investment

Naresh Dairy Farm versus Protium Finance Limited

Bank of India versus Mrs. Zeba Parveen

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Sudheer Reddy

Sai Baba Textiles Rep by its Prop G Vinay versus Icici Bank Limited