Allowed

State Bank of India v. Msr Textiles

DRT9 Jan 2026OA/430/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed OA filed by State Bank of India against M/s. MSR Textiles and its partners. The bank claimed recovery of a total sum exceeding two crores along with future interest and proceeds against secured assets including hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.2,20,52,118.00 with future interest; Bank allowed to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties for realization of debt.

State Bank of India versus Msr Textiles — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE gth DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶2

PRESENT: SRt GUMMADT cOptCHAND, PREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 430 OF 2O2S

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed asset Recovery Branch (SARB), 2nd Floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti Hyderabad, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. MSR Textiles, A Partnership Firm, Rep by its Partners Defendants No. 2 to 5, H.No. 5-16, Sy. No. 174, Kundurupalli, Bhupalapalli, Kompalle, Jayashankar Bhupalapalli District - 506 168.

¶9

Sri. Methukupalli Linga Reddy, S/o. SriM. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business & Partner of Defendant no.1 Firm, H.No. 5-16, Sy. No. 174, Kundurupalli, Bhupalapalli, Kompalle, Jayashankar Bhupalapalli District - 506 168

¶10

(OA. No. 430/202s)

¶11

Smt. Methukupalli Lakshmi Sujatha, Wo Sri. Methukupalli Linga Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business &^partner of Defendant no.1 Firm, H.No.5-16, Sy. No. 174, Kundurupalli, Bhupalapalli, Kompalle, Jayashankar Bhupalapalti District - 506 168

¶12

Sri. Methukupalli Dayananda Reddy, S/o Sri. Methukupalli Linga Reddy Aged about 31 years,

¶13

Occ: Business & Partner of Defendant no.1 Firm, H.No. 5-16, Sy. No. 174, Kundurupalli, Bhupalapalli,

¶14

Kompalle, Jayashankar Bhupalapalli District - 506 16g

¶15

Sri. Methukupalli Rajashekhar Reddy, S/o Sri. Methukupalli Linga Reddy Aged about 35 years,

¶16

Occ: Business &^partner of Defendant no.1 Firm,

¶17

H.No. 5-16, Sy. No. 174, Kundurupalli, Bhupalapalli,

Kompalle

Defendants

(oA. No. a3ol202s)

Counsel for the parties :

¶22

For The Applicant G. Prabhakar Sarma For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 07 .01.2026 Pronounced on 09.01.2026 Upload in website on 09.01.2026

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1' The Appricant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,20,52,11g.00 ps. (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Eighteen Only) i.e a sum of _

¶25

(i) Rs.78,25,613.00 ps. (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen Onty) with future interest @ 13.05% p.a with monthty rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶26

(ii) Rs.19,48,114.00 ps. (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fourteen Only) with future rests from the date of this date of realization. * o g ,'.i:r ?o?o

¶27

(oA. No. 430/202s)

¶28

(iii) Rs.45,78,784.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Four Onty) with future interest @ 13.90% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶29

(iv) Rs.43,51,397.00 ps. (Rupees Fofi Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) with future interest @ 10.90% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶30

(v) Rs.33,47,610.00 ps. (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ten Only) with future interest @ 12.25% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶31

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedules of Property A to H to OA.

¶32

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a partnership Firm represented by it;_ Pqrtners Defendants No. 2 to 5 availed Term Loan of ,;l'Rs.2.68^{Crores repayable} in 2g^quarterly installments of Rs.9.57 interest @9-25#^ri a with monthly rests and executed Agreement of Lo,4.nj cum Hypothecation dated 1g.11.2017 in .r.r 4

¶33

(OA. No. 430/202s)

¶34

favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 to 5 stood as a Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 18.11.2017 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 1 represented by its Partners Defendants No. 2 to 5 availed GECL facility of Rs.80.00 Lakhs on 01.07.2020 and executed Revival Letter dated 31.08.2020 in favor of the Appricant Bank. The defendants No. 1 and 3 to 5 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of properties A to G to the OA and executed Memorandum For Recording Creation of Mortgage by Deposit Of Title Deeds dated 20.11.2017 in favor of the Applicant Bank and deposited Original Registered Sale deeds in favor of the Appricant Bank . After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 30.05.2024 and issued Demand notice dated 01.06.2024 under section 13(2) oI the SARFAEST Act, 2002 to the defendants. The Applicant Bank also proceeded against the SARFAESI proceedings and issued various notices to the Defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶35

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 07.01.2026.

¶36

the Applicant Bank examined relevant documents, which are

¶37

(oA. No. 430/202s)

¶38

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶39

The point that arise for consideration IS whether the Applicant bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶40

7' 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.43. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶41

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

¶42

The Defendants No. 1 to 5 are joinfly and severaily riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of of Rs.2,20,52,11g.00 Ps. (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Eighteen Only) i.e a sum of _

¶43

3.00 Ps. with future interest @ 13.OSo/o p.a from till the date of realization.

¶44

r: * 0q.^ *
rfl :,::{
,:.:,1
'
w!

¶45

(oA. No. a30l202s)

¶46

(ii) Rs.19,48,714.00 ps. with future interest @ 14.65%o p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶47

(iii) Rs.45,78,784.00 ps. with future interest @ 13.90o/o p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶48

(iv) Rs.43,51,397.00 ps. with future interest @ 10.g}yo p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶49

(v) Rs.33,47,610.00 ps. with future interest @ 12.2SVo p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶50

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 to 5 and properties of Defendant no.^'l firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶54

Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶55

u
*
1 1Qr.

¶56

(oA. No. 430/202s)

¶57

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶58

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶59

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶60

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

¶61

sd/(c. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

State Bank of India v. Msr Textiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Msr Textiles

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 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 M/S.Discovery Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs. Nanda Vamshi Yadav Anithabai

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