Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens

DRT17 Mar 2026OA/450/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Origin Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan of Rs. 73.53 lakhs. The court found the bank's evidence satisfactory and dismissed the respondents' defenses regarding limitation and RBI guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.73.53 lakhs with interest; recovery certificate issued; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.45O ot 2O2S

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2'd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens, Represented by its^proprietor, Mr, Byreddy Anjireddy, S/o Raghava Reddy, aged about 52 years, occ: business, male, Office at Sy.No.897, Addagudur Village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Dist - 508 277.

¶9

Also at

¶10

H. No. 1-7515/ 40/ t, ptot no.7 , Sy.No.36,37,38,39 and 40 Sairam nagar colony, Boduppal Municipal corporation, Medchal Malkajgiri dist- 500 092.

¶11

Also at

¶12

H.No.t-75/ 5/ 40 / t, Sri Sairam Nagar colony, road no.1, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist - 500 092.

¶13

Mr. Byreddy Anjireddy, s/o Raghava Reddy,

¶14

(oA. No.4s0l202s)

¶15

g.g-qd 9b9!! 52 years, occ: business, male, H. No. 1-7515/40 / t, Sri Sairam Nagar colony, road no,1, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist - 500 092.

¶16

Also at

¶17

H.No.1-7515/40/t, plot no.7 , Sy.No.36,37,38,39 and 40 Sairam nagar colony, Boduppal Municipal corporation, Medchal Malkajgiri dist- 500 092.

¶18

Also at:

¶19

Sy.No.897, Addagudur Village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Dist - 508 277.

¶20

Byreddy Shobharani, W/o Anjireddy, Aged about major, occ: business, Female,

¶21

H.No.1-7 5/ 5/ 40 / t, ptot no.7, Sy.No.36,37,38,39 and 40 Sairam nagar colony, Boduppal Municipal corporation, Medchal Matkajgiri dist- 500 092.

¶22

Also at:

¶23

Sy.No.897, Addagudur Village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Dist - 508 277.

¶24

Defendants

¶25

Counsel for the^parties:

¶26

For the Applicantthe Applicant

¶27

For the Applicantthe Applicant Smt Tarangini^pisipati Sri G. Mahender t2.03.2026 17 fitfr?Mfi * L7.03.2026 +r Uploaded t7.03.2026

¶28

(oA.No.4s0/2025)

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.73,53,515/_ (Rupees Seventy Three Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen only) with interest @ 13.15olo p.a with monthly rests from L6.Og.2O2S till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedules^..A & 8,, to OA,

¶31

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is the proprietorship firm represented by proprietor/ defendant no.2 and defendants no.2 & 3 stood as guarantors avaired roan of Rs.g0.00 rakhs under term roan facility on 3.02.2023. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 03.02.2023. The defendants mortgaged the schedure mentioned properties in favour of Applicant bank and deposited the tire deeds. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants avaired the said roan facirities and failed to keep up the repayment schedure, as such the account was classified as NpA on 25.01.2025 and issued recall notice dated tL.09.2025. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the accoun! and the Applicant bank issued n oticesr,j:bUflthe ot'.7-r";1rHrg"!.,ffi.t did not come forward to repay the same. The,!btdl' cla i m gf^fl Ont icdr$'{qa inst defenda nts is of Rs. 73, 5 g,StS I - * li li t..

¶32

(Rripees fflggiyz11ffreerl Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Five !l i- ' r", ., '.i'.' 3 :,... - .,.;11^{.:' .} 'l' '!i-';- '; +,:,--. . .^''

¶33

(oA.No.450 /20zsl

¶34

Hundred and Fifteen only) with interest @ L3.LSo/o p.a from 16.09.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶35

2' The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants denied the creation of mortgage of schedule properties in favour of Applicant bank. It is contended that the Application is barred by limitation. It is further contended that the defendants did not receive any notices as aileged by the appricant bank. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶36

I have perused the documents praced on record.

¶37

Heard the arguments.

¶38

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶39

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in oA against the defendants ?

¶40

ii) To what relief ?

¶41

Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the deposeil about the liability of the defendants. LP...;gr" -!e.t^{marked through AW.1.Defendant} No.3 a3b-q.1 and not fited any documents. t'ii

¶42

¶43

(oA.No.as0l202s)

¶44

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 1st defendant examined himserf as DW.1 and not fired any documents, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Appricant bank makes crear that a, the rerevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normar course of transaction. The defendants very vaguery contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the appricant bank is entired to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶45

Point No.ii)

¶46

B. In the resurt, the present originar apprication is a[owed with costs as under:

¶47

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.73,53 ,S1-Sl- (Rupees Seventy

¶48

Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen only) with date of

¶49

(oA.No.450 /202s)

¶50

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶51

properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of

¶52

the debt due.

¶53

10' The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶54

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶55

L2' The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶56

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶57

L4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶58

(Dictated 6o the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of March, 2026)

¶59

sdl-

¶60

ff
llo 1 l
it
i,;. ' r.
i
1,1, i.;i;,.-'':.::.;
"H:

¶61

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶62

PRES!DING OFF!CER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens

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. Sri Sai Ganesh Agency

Canara Bank versus M/S.Surya Powerloom Industry

Godavari Polymers Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Smt Korukonda Battar Chudmani Died Per Lr versus State Bank of India

Gandu Srinivas Goud versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Nallabothu Narender