Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S.Discovery Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

DRT9 Jan 2026OA/426/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the recovery application filed by the State Bank of India against a corporate borrower and two individual guarantors. The tribunal confirmed the debt and ordered payment with interest, permitting action against mortgaged properties and other assets for realization.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 13,92,49,058.00 plus future interest at 16.25%; authorized recovery from mortgaged properties and other assets; issued Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S.Discovery Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

!N THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE^gth DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADT cOpICHAND, pRES|DtNG OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 426OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Management Branch - ll, D.No. 3-4-1013/A, First Floor, CAC, TSRTC Bus Station, Kacheguda Hyderabad - 500 021 Represented by its Constituted Attorney

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Discovery Laboratories pvt. Ltd., MIG - 172, Namaskar House, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad -50072 Telangana.

¶9

Also at -

¶10

Factory Address M/s. Discovery Laboratories^pvt. Ltd. Sy. No.698/699, Thangadapally Village Qhoutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanaglri""-" Telangana - SOB{252'. il '" ii *' [!^{g I r' :rin} :l l:''

¶11

(oA. No. 426/202s)

¶12

Sri. Manne prasanth, S/o. M.V sekhar, Age Major, Gender Male, Plot No. 426,

¶13

Vivekanandanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad _ SOO OZ2, Telangana.

¶14

Smt. Manne Nishita, Wo Manne prasanth, Age Major, Gender Female, Plot No. 426,

¶15

Vivekanandanagar Cotony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad _ SOO OZ2, Telangana.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the parties .

For The Applicant

For the Defendant

Reserved on

Pronounced on

Upload in website on

Alluri Krishnam Raju

Exparte

07.01.2026

09.01 .2026

09.01 .2026

:
!il!. -l
i:r- ' ,
lt: .. I

¶29

(oA. No. 426/2ozs)

¶30

ORDER

¶31

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a totat sum of Rs.l g,g2,4g,osg.00 ps. (Rupees Thirteen crores Ninety Two Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Fifty Eight onry) with future interes t @ 16.2so/o p.a with monthly rests from 14-08.2025 till the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of Hypothecated Movabres and Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the schedures of property A to D to OA.

¶32

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a company represented by its Directors avaired cash credit rimit of Rs.11.50 crores and Bank Guarantee Limit GECL of Rs.1.5g crores and executed supplementar Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 23.09.2021 in favor of the Appricant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 29.0s.2023 in favor of the Appricant Bank. The defendant No. 1 created Equitabre Mortgage morefuily mentioned in schedure of property B to the oA and executed Form dated 22-os.2oo6 in favor of the Appricant Original Sale deeds in favor of the ,.itApplieant The defendant No. 2 created Equitable mentioned in Schedule of property C to the

¶33

¶34

(oA. No. 426/zo2sl

¶35

OA deposited Original Sale deeds dated 22.0g.2011 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendant No. 3 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property D to the OA and executed Letter of Confirmation dated 30.05.2023 in favor of the Appricant Bank and deposited originar Gift deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 1 represented by its director renewed the above mentioned roan facilities from 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 16.03.2025 and issued Legal notice to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶36

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 07.01.2026.

¶37

Sri. S R p Srinivas, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.40.

¶38

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶39

.The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is the claim made in the OA against the for?

¶40

¶41

(OA. No. 42612025)

¶42

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.40. 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 entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶43

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

¶44

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.i3,92,49,05g.00 ps. (Rupees Thirteen Crores Ninety Two Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand and Fifty Eight onry) with future interest @16.25%^p.a from 14.08.2025 tiil thedateof realization.

¶45

¶46

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties as mentioned in the Schedules of property A to D to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

dated 10.12.2025 absolute. lnclude

¶48

(oA. No. 426/2o2sl

¶49

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 and 3 and properties of Defendant no. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

(?i"t?l"d-i: the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the^gh day ofJan, 2026)

¶55

tl,' ..'....:1..'
,{dJ*''
*
'/ * Sp og )flrn frRUqGcP,
ty)
,-ij ug-u-An!s!. Railfra
DRT-,. HY6#iE^g

¶56

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFTCER

State Bank of India v. M/S.Discovery Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S.Discovery Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Durga Maruthi Automotives Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri Durga Automotives

Canara Bank versus Sri. Maalagown Anjaneyulu

State Bank of India versus Msr Textiles

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs. Nanda Vamshi Yadav Anithabai

Canara Bank versus M/S. Jp.Power;Looms Industry