Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Bhagyalakshmi Enterprises

DRT5 Feb 2026OA/497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellate Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an appeal filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues from M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Enterprises and its proprietor. The court held that the bank established its claim and ordered joint and several liability for repayment of principal with interest.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs. 22,23,411 with future interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; permit bank to proceed against properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bhagyalakshmi Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRTBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE Osth DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPICHAND,^pREStDtNG OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 497 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch - 2, H.No. 1-8-563/1 , 1st Floor,

¶6

Opp. Sandhya Theatre

¶7

RTC X Road, Chikkadapally Hyderabad - 500 020

¶8

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mrs. Bagyalakshmi Thogiti,

¶12

Office at - H.No. 3-4, Sy. No. 6 and 16, lnjapur Village,

¶13

Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Rangareddy, Telangana - 500 070

¶14

Mrs. Thogiti Bhagyalakshmi, Wo. T. Nagabrahmam, Aged Major, Occ. Business R/o. Plot No. 04, NP, lnformation Colony, Anmagal, Near Hanuman Temple, Hayathnagar,

¶15

Ranga Reddy Telangana - 501 505.

¶16

O 5 FEB 2O2F
Defendants

¶17

(oA. No. 492202s)

¶18

Counsel for the parties :

¶19

For The Applicant Mettu Srinivas Reddy For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 30.01.2026 Pronounced on 05.02.2026 Upload in website on 05.02.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.12,23,411.00 ps. (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eleven Only) i.e a sum of -

¶22

(i) Rs.26,12,609.00 Ps with future interest @ 13.40 % p.a with monthly rests inclusive of penal interesl @2o/op.a from 08.08.2025 till the date of reatization.

¶23

(ii) Rs.46,10,802.00 Ps. with future interest @13.40Vo p.a with monthly rests. inclusive of penal interest @2o/op.a from till the date of realization.

¶24

(oA. No. 497l202s)

¶25

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant No. 2 avaired rerm Loan facirity of Rs.49.00 Lakhs and working capital facility of Rs.25.00 Lakhs and executed Agreement of loan Cum Hypothecation dated 24.02.2023 in favor of the Appticant Bank. The Defendant no. 2 stood as a Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 24.02.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants enhanced the above meniloned loan facilities 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 29.12.2024 and issued Legat notice dated 18.0g.2025 to the defendants. rnspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 30.01.2026.

¶27

Sri. B. Ramakrishna prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.1 1.

¶28

d"..Qounsel for the Appl i cant Bank.
€S
tu
'*
a

¶29

(OA. No. 49712025)

¶30

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?

¶31

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.11. 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 Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶32

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

¶33

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,23,411.00 Ps. (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eleven Only) i.e a sum of -

¶34

(i) Rs.26,12,609.00 Ps with future interest @ 13.40 o/o p.a lrom 08.08.2025 till the date of realization.

¶35

.45,10,802.00 Ps. with future interest @13.40% p.a from 5 till the date of realization.

¶36

(OA. No. 497 /2o2sl

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(?i:t1ed-t9_-the p.A., transcribed by her, conected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05'h day of Feb, 2026)

¶43

sd/(c. GoPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

6*"
rP s?
; oisEsmzn I
W,tW

¶45

State Bank of India v. M/S. Bhagyalakshmi Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Bhagyalakshmi Enterprises

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

Karthik Singh Deepawale versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Mrs Urmila Goel versus Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Sri Kolluri Adithya Sai

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saritha Industries

Navneeta Agarwal versus State Bank of India