Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri. Venkateswara Traders

DRT11 Mar 2026OA/600/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an OA filed by SBI to recover dues of Rs.1.93 crore from traders and guarantors; held bank established claim despite default.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1.93 crores with future interest; Bank entitled to sell hypothecated/mortgaged property and proceed against person/properties of defendants for realiz

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri. Venkateswara Traders — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE llrH DAy OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.6OO ot 2O2S

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-2, RTC Cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, Rep by its partners Kandikanti Sree Harsh & Ms. Sreeja Koduri, Regd office at Sy.No.10/1, Aliabad, Shamirpet, Medchal, Malkajgiri District - 500 078.

¶9

Sri Kandikanti Sree Harsh, s/o K. Rajkumar, aged about 34 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.1-14-49, Lothukunta, Tirumalghery, Secunderabad - 500

¶10

Ms. Koduri Sreeja, W/o Sampath Kumar, Aged about 38 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.1-5-137, Kaman road, Bolwada, Karimnagar - 505 001.

¶11

*
A+

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant Sri Hari Prasad Podila Reserved on 09.03.2026 Pronounced on 11.03.2026 Uploaded in website on lt.03.2026

¶14

(oA.No.600 of 202s)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,93,79,043/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Forty Three only) ie.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.54,31,466l- with future interest @ 14.9olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application tiil the date of realization ;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.L,39,47,577/- in term loan account with future interest @ L2.9o/o^p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶19

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor of defendant no.1 firm and defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors to the loan availed by defendant no.1 for a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs under cash credit and Rs.140 lakhs under term loan facility on 27.e2.2023. Defendant no.1 created primary security on hypothecation of stocks and book debts and defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned Proefff:a$rsary* the loan facilities, the defendants failed to .",nffi","rffi"r:#t ,^{hence the} applicant bank classified the 2025 and issued legal notice dated 2

¶21

(OA.No.500 of 2025)

¶22

28.08.2025. Inspite ofseveral requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 09.03.2026.

¶24

Sri J. Rama Rao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.14.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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?

¶27

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,A1 to A,14. In 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.

¶28

B, In the resglt,.the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: ?f4^{oef€nOants{rre jointly} and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant i!'..6r i!.{' i.-.rJ| r.iif¹ⁱ ,r o, ?:. ... .'' ,' ai"n^Aa"n^{ka to} &l,^$$^sum dp.s,t,^oms'l1r^93,79,O431 g,o43l^-(Rupees on^On^e Crore Ninety ;)iirtt taHtsffiet&itn,". rhousand and Forty Three onty) ie., . 1 ' 1 - '1;, ;i ,. * '*.. ..'{n^ . 2-- n,"r1g96;'_.1'. ^5:/ *.p.,i,ry^-'.' "' 3

¶29

(oA.No.500 of 202s)

¶30

a) A sum of Rs.54,31,466l- with future interest @ 14.9olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶31

b) A sum of Rs.1,39,47,577/- in term loan account with future interest @ 12.9olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realisation of the debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

P.A,, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on March,2026)

¶39

¶40

rilRtlE COPY tl,yt .-*z't sdlAestfcgilsYrar (G. coPtCHAND) oRr-r, lrYfi;RASllf PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri. Venkateswara Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri. Venkateswara Traders

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

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Aleti Aruna

State Bank of India versus Gootty Chandra Sekhar

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sri. K. Venkataiah Goud

Canara Bank versus Smt. Padmamma

Canara Bank versus Sri Laxmi Powerloom Industry

State Bank of India versus Dommati Sai Krishna