Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Yuva Sree Diagnostics

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/598/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Origin Application for recovery of Rs. 29,96,880 with future interest against defaulting borrowers who failed to pay a term loan due under an agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 05.12.2023.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 29,96,880 with future interest; suit for recovery of hypothecated movables proceeds; provision for recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Yuva Sree Diagnostics — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFIGER

OA. No. 598 OF 2025

Between :

State Bank of lndia,

SMECCC Branch Secunderabad, Beside Head Post office, Patny Centre, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500 003 Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Yuva Sree Diagnostics,

¶10

Rep. by its Proprietor,

¶11

Sri. Angothu Naveen,

¶12

Office at - Plot No. 78,

¶13

Chinna Cheruvu Shanthinagar Main Road, Ramanthapur Bagayath Uppal,

¶14

Medchal District,

¶15

Telangana State - 500 013.

¶16

Sri. Angothu Naveen, S/o. Sri. Shankar Angothu,

¶17

Age about 30 years, Occ. Business,

¶18

R/o. H.No. 51,

¶19

Resulaboddu Thanda

¶20

Manchenna Rao Peta Post,

¶21

Ameenpet, Ameenabad,

¶22

Nekkonda, Warangal - SOG 122

¶23

Defendants
FTB ?vr

¶24

(oA. No. s98/202s)

¶25

Counsel for the parties :

¶26

For The Applicant Hari Prasad Podila For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 28.01.2026 Pronounced on 04.o2.2026 Upload in website on 04.02.2026

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,96,880.00 Ps. (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Only) together with future interest @14.15o/o compounded with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶29

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship Firm its Proprietor Defendant no. 2 availed Term .s f Rs. ,0001^repayable in 57^{monthly installments} rrp^loa tEB Tyt .*, 0t

¶30

(oA. No. s98/2o2sl

¶31

of Rs.75,435/- each with interest and Agreement of^Loan- cum- Hypothecation dated 05.12.2023 by which^the Defendants hypothecated the movables morefully^mentioned in Schedule of property to OA 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 14.07.2025 and issued Legal^Notice dated 21.10.2025 to the defendants. lnspite^{of several requests} and demands, the defendants did not clear the^outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶32

¶33

Defendants called absent and set exparte on^28.01.2026

¶34

Sri. Ugadi Srinivasa Rao, Chief Manager^{of the Applicant} Bank examined himse.lf as AW.1 and exhibited^relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1^{to A.8.}

¶35

¶36

Heard the Ld. Counsel for-the Applicant^Bank.

¶37

The point that arise for consideration is whether^{the Applicant} bank is entitled for the claim made in the^{OA againstthe} Defendants as prayed for?

¶38

dants remained exparte. To substantiate^{the case of the} Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank^was nd he exhibited relevant documents as^{Ex.A.1to A.8.}

¶39

(oA. No. s98/202s)

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are^{jointly and} severally^{liable to} pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.29,96,880.00 Ps. (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Only) together with future^interest @14.15%^{lrom the date of this applicationtill the date of} realization.

¶43

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against^the Hypothecated Movables as mentionedⁱⁿ the^Scheduleof Property to the OA towards realization^{of the debtdue.}

¶44

10 The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^{proceed againstthe} person and properties of Defendant No. 2 and^propertiesof Defendant no. 1 firm towards realization^{of the debt due..}

¶45

Bank is entitled to the costs of^{the OA.} $\ 0 4 rFB 2026

¶46

(oA. No. s98/2o2s)

¶47

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

¶48

13 lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court^on this the 04th day of Feb, 2026)

¶51

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

L'I'
,"; 0{Ftg2020 *
r.l,- .s ?
,.W

¶53

t,iw^*ff,fl,

State Bank of India v. M/S. Yuva Sree Diagnostics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Yuva Sree Diagnostics

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

Sri Javvaji Suresh versus Bank of Baroda

M S Lmr Constructions versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Miss. Kota Karika

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Private Limited

Ms Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep by its Prop Vema Rambabu versus Union Bank of India

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Sri Kolluri Adithya Sai