Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Our Basket

DRT7 Jan 2026OA/503/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal I at Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 28,12,100.00 along with future interest against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor who appeared ex parte. The court held in favour of the applicant and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA with costs; outlawing liability to pay Rs. 28,12,100.00 with future interest; directed issuance of Recovery Certificate; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Our Basket — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI cUMMAD! GOpICHAND, PRESIDtNG OFFTCER

¶4

OA. No. 503 OF 2025

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed asset Recovery Branch - ll, (SARB - ll), First Ftoor, Opp. Sandhya Theatre, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Our Basket, Rep by its Proprietor, Defendant No.2 H.no. 1-1-336/30, Near Kirana Ghar,

¶10

Vivek Nagar, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶11

Also at -

¶12

H. No. 1-5-1050/87,

¶13

Plot No. 102/1, Sy. No. 592, Saibaba Nagar, Mangapuram, Alwal, Secunderabad,500 010.

¶14

¶15

(oA. No. s03/202s)

¶16

Smt.SangaRajeswari,,
Wo.Sri. Sanga Srinivas,,
AgeAbout36years,Female,
Occupation:Business,
Proprietorof Defendant No.1
H.no. 1-1-336/30,
Near Kirana Ghar,
VivekNagar,Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-500 020		Defendants
Counsel fortheparties:
For TheApplicant	G.PrabhakarSarma
FortheDefendant	Exparte
Reservedon	05.01.2026
Pronouncedon	07.01.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	b1^.el^'1026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.28,12,100.00 ps. (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Twelve Thousand and One Hundred

¶19

i.e a sum of-

¶20

(oA. No. s03/202s)

¶21

(i) Rs.5,87,263.00 ps. (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Three Only) with future interest @ 11.40 % p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶22

(ii) Rs.22,24,837.00 ps. (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven Only) with future interest @ 16.25 % p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶23

and in defaurt for sare of Hypothecated Movabres as mentioned in the Schedule of^property to OA.

¶24

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant No. 2 availed Term Loan of Rs.13,44,000/- repayabte in 47 monthty instaltments of Rs.36,900/- and Cash Credit Loan facitity of Rs.20,00,000/_ together with interest @ 12.65% p.a with monthly rests executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 10.03.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank cldssified the account as NpA on 0g.06.2025 and issued ....Legal notice dated og.o9.2o2s to the defendants. lnspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the o'r.itstgnding. Hence this OA.

:i 3 -, :j

$'{\

(oA. No. s03/202s)

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 05.01.2026.

¶30

Sri. B. Rama Krishna Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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?

¶33

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.9. 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.

¶34

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

¶35

The ..:,r_.Defendants No. 1 and 2 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to ttp Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.28,12,100.00 Ps. Eight Lakhs Twelve Thousand and One )i.easumof-

¶36

(oA. No. s03/202s)

¶37

(i) Rs.5,87,263.00 Ps. (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Three Only) with future interest @ 11.40 % p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶38

(ii) Rs.22,24,837.00 Ps. (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thifi Seven Only) with future interest @ 16.25 %^p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶39

¶40

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of the Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and properties of defendant No. 2 and properties of Defendant No. 1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

,'

B7
o4-j

¶45

(oA. No. s03l2o2s)

¶46

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, correc'ted, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7h day ofJan, 2026)

¶49

m7n
,119

¶50

sd/-
(c. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ru{%"
,ffihf.il,'9frffli''

¶51

¶52

State Bank of India v. M/S. Our Basket

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Our Basket

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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Podila Ramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

State Bank of India versus Mr. Putta Sudhakar

Bank of India versus Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri. Venkateshwara Traders