Allowed

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

DRT11 May 2026OA/450/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against three defendants for recovery of a loan sum of Rs.73,56,515/- with interest, rejecting the defense of limitation and lack of notices.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly liable to pay Rs.73,56,515/- with interest @13.15% p.a. from 16.09.2025; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and other properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Raghu Rama Sai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 11rH DAY OF MAY, 2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.45O ot²⁰²⁵

¶5

Between:

¶6

state Bank of^India, Stressed Assets^{RecoverY Branch,} 2d floor, TSRTC^{commuter Amenity} Centre, bus^{terminal comPlex,Koti,} Hyderabad - 500^095. Represented bY^{its Manager}

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Raghu^{RamaSai 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.

¶10

Also at

¶11

H.No. 1-7515/401 l, Plot no.7, Sy.No.36,37,38,39 and⁴⁰ Sairam nagar colony, Boduppal MuniciPal corporation, Medchal Malkajgiri dist- 500 092.

¶12

Also at

¶13

Also at ..11, ' '' n$r H. No. 1-75l5/40/ 1, Sri Sairam . ,rP Nagar colony, road no.1, * Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri 11 nAr mn Dist - 500 092.

¶14

Mr. Byreddy Anjireddy, s/o Raghava Reddy,

¶15

(OA. No.4s0l202s)

¶16

aged about 52 years, occ: business, male, H.No. 1-7515/40/ l, Sri Sairam Nagar colony, road no.1, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist - 500 092.

¶17

Also at

¶18

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

¶19

Also at:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Also at: Sy.No.897, Addagudur Village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Dist - 508 277. Defendants

¶24

Counsel for the Parties:

¶25

For the Applicant Smt Tarangini Pisipati Defendants lnji., ri G. Mahender Orders reserved 11 [[Y .03.2026 Pronounced .03.2026 Uploaded in 12.05.2026

¶26

(oA. No.asol202s)

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Amended vide memo dated 07.05.2026)

¶29

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.73,56,515/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lakhs Fifty SixThousand Five Hundred and Fifteen only) with interest @ 13.15olo p.a with monthly rests from 16.09.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of and mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedules "A & B" to OA.

¶30

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 availed loan of Rs.90.00 lakhs under term loan facility on 3.02.2023. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 03.02.2023. The defendants mortgaged the schedule mentioned properties in favour of Applicant bank and deposited the tile deeds. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on 25.01.2025 and issued recall notice dated 25. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants ularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued ''^,,iil:{;$,, defendants did not come forward to repay the same. !1,?, Applicant against defendants is of Rs.73,56,5151\ ,.yiili#,il?dijr", d'r n

¶31

(OA. No.4s0l202s)

¶32

(Rupees Seventy Three Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred

¶33

and Fifteen only) with interest @ 13.15olo p.a from 16.09.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶34

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 alleged by the applicant bank. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶35

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶36

Heard the arguments.

¶37

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶38

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

¶39

ii) To what relief ?

¶40

Point No.i):

¶41

Mr. S. Prathik Yadav, Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of deposed about the liability of the defendants. are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.3

¶42

DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶43

(OA. No.4s0l202s)

¶44

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 1st defendant examined himself as DW.1 and not filed 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 substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that^particulars 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 applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶45

Point No.ii)

¶46

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nd er:

¶47

,,1I:..-^{The DefendantsNo.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to} sum of Rs.73,56,515/- (Rupees Seventy

¶48

Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen only)

¶49

(oA. No.as0l202s)

¶50

with interest @ 13.15olo p.a from L6.O9.2025 till the date of

¶51

realization;

¶52

The applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the^mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶53

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 entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶55

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶56

ca t (eaaccord ingly.

¶57

t4. of t hr e order to the pa rties conce:rnned.

¶58

/^her, corrected. signed and pronounced by me i r n the o penl cou rt on

¶59

sd/-

¶60

(G.i. GOPICioF)lclHAND)

¶61

TESIEDI NG O F FICER

¶62

nd.i-r,^ivoEnns

¶63

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 Satya Durga Industries

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Laxmi Narasimha Traders

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vignatha Granites

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Burra Mahesh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nandamuri Transporters Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vignesh Powerloom Industry