Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Durga Automotives

DRT8 Jan 2026OA/448/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this money recovery application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim for a debt of approx. Rs. 6.12 crores, including principal, interest, and costs. The judgment held the partnership firm and guarantors liable and authorized the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1-6 jointly and severally liable to repay Rs. 6,12,26,222.33 with future interest; bank entitled to sale of mortgaged properties and issue of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sri Durga Automotives — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA. No. 448 OF 2025

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch - 2, House No. 3-4-1013/A, New Bus Station,

¶7

1st Floor, TSRTC,

¶8

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

Represented by its Asst. General Manager

¶10

Applicant

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Sri Durga Automotives, Partnership firm rep by its Partners 17-1-266,

¶13

Gooty Road,

¶14

Anantapur - 515 001 .

¶15

Also at -

¶16

Sy. No. 124,

¶17

Somaldoddi, NH - 44, Hanuman Junction,

Anantapur- 515 001

Rao,

Aged about 73 years, Occ : Business, frt R/o. Door No. 13-2-140, Shirdi Nagar, * NeaTAPSRTC Bus Stand, Gooty Road,

¶22

Anantapur - 515 001.

¶23

(oA. No. 4481202s)

¶24

Sudha Rajya Lakshmi, Wo. Sudha Venkateshwara Rao,

¶25

Aged about 66 years, Occ : Business, Female, R/o. Door No. 13-2-140, Shirdi Nagar, Near APSRTC Bus Stand, Gooty Road, Anantapur- 515 001.

¶26

Sudha Maheshwara Rao

¶27

@^{SudhaMaesh Rao,}

¶28

S/o. Sudha Venkateshwara Rao,

¶29

Aged about 49 years, Occ : Business, Male, R/o. Door No. 13-2-140, Shirdi Nagar, NeaTAPSRTC Bus Stand, Gooty Road, Anantapur - 515 001.

¶30

Sudha Rajeswara Rao,

¶31

S/o. Sudha Venkateshwara Rao,

¶32

Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, Male, R/o. Door No. 13-2-140, Shirdi Nagar, NeaTAPSRTC Bus Stand, Gooty Road, Anantapur - 515 001

¶33

Manchi Chandra Sekhar

¶34

S/o. Late M. Sivaiah,

¶35

Aged about 69 years, Occ : Business, Male, R/o. Door No.71827-?

¶36

Saraswathi Vidyamandiri Road,

¶37

r'.^. YSRKadapa -^{516 360.} Defendants BB

¶38

(OA. No. 448/202s)

¶39

Counsel for the^parties :

¶40

For The Applicant Tarangini Pisipati For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on 06.01.2026 Pronounced on 08.01.2026 Upload in website on 08.01.2026

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6,12,26,222.33 Ps. (Rupees Six Crores Twelve Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two and Paise Thirty Three Only) i.e a sum of -

¶43

(i) Rs.5,44,81,491.33 Ps. (Rupees Five Crores Forty Four Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Four Hundred Ninety One and Paise Thifi Three Only) with future interest @ 10.85% p.a with monthly rests inclusive of penal interest with monthly rests from 30.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶44

(ii) Rs.67,44,73{.00 Ps. (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Forty Four Thpusand Seven Hundred and Thirty One Only) .^{r''- :,} with futurq.Jilerest @ 10.90% p.a with monthly rests inclusive of

¶45

,',' 'A ti il r..^.J 'i 3 :" ,,fj ,^.r '. t ..' ./

¶46

(OA. No. 448/202s)

¶47

penal interest with monthly rests from 30.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶48

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedule of Properties A to C to OA.

¶49

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm represented by its Partners Defendants No. 2 to 5 availed cash credit loan facility of Rs.600.00 Lakhs with interest @ 10.85o/o p.a with monthly rests and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 1 0.1 0.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 to 6 stood as a Personal Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreements daled 10.10.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants availed GECL facility of Rs.66.00 Lakhs with interest @10.85% p.a with monthly rests and executed Supplemental Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 15.11.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No.5 create equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property B to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 10.10.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank and deposited Original Sale deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No.6 create ' equitable^.,.. mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property^:'6' to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of 1j i' i Title'deedd dated 18.07.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank and

¶50

(oA. No. 448/202s)

¶51

deposited Original title deeds in favor of the Applicant BankThe Defendant No. 1 represented by its Partners Defendants No. 2 to 5 renewed the above mentioned 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 26.03.2025 and issued Legal notice dated 31.08.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶52

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 06.01.2026.

¶53

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.26.

¶54

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶55

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?

¶56

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the ' ,ease of Ihe,Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank i: f^{"wq-gEexaniinedand he exhibited relevant documentsas Ex.A.1to}

¶57

(OA. No. tl48l2025)

¶58

A.26. 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.

¶59

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

¶60

The Defendants No. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.6,12,26,222.33^ps. (Rupees Six Crores Twelve Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two and Paise Thirty Three Only) i.e a sum of-

¶61

(i) Rs.5,44,81,491.33 Ps. with future interest @ 10.85% p.a from 30.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶62

(ii) Rs.67,44,731.00 Ps. with future interest @ 10.90% p.a from 30.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶63

o The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Properties as in the Schedules of the Properties A to C to the OA of the debt due. * ,07j .iEr

¶64

(oA. No. 448l2o2sl

¶65

The Applicant Bank is also entitled 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.

¶66

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

¶67

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

¶68

!ssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶69

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶70

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶71

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFIGER

¶72

State Bank of India v. Sri Durga Automotives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Durga Automotives

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Our Basket

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Raja Rajeshwara Tent House

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri. Venkateshwara Traders

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gujja Srinivas

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Briztron Softech Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri. Maalagown Anjaneyulu