Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Vikasika Enterprises Private Limited

DRT11 May 2026OA/63/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of cash credit and term loans along with interest and costs from the defendants, who appeared ex-parte. The tribunal upheld the claim secured by hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay sum of Rs. 70,09,361/- along with future interest, costs, and confirmed entitlement to proceed against hypothecated assets.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Vikasika Enterprises Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I] AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com,, L.LB.^(Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 63 OF 2026

¶5

State Bank of India., Specialized Startup Hub Branch, l Ground Floor, Salarpuria Knowledge City, Octava Building, Unit Nos.2 & 3, Survey No.83/1 Plot No.2, Raidurgam Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - 500081. Rep. by its Chief lvlanager.

¶6

...Appllcant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Vikasika Enterprises Private Limited., Represented by its l4anaging Director Mrs. Gowthami Kotte

¶9

Wo.^{Mr. Sri Ram, Registered Office at} Plot No.290 & 291, First Floor, ADR Center, Vivekananda Nagar Main Road Road No.2, Kukatpa lly, Hyderabad-500072.

¶10

Mrs. Gowthami Kotte, Wo. Mr. Sai Ram Aged 37 Years, Occ: Business R/o. House No. 6-28-4811A Kanyakaparmeshwari Temple Street Sundipenta, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518102.

¶11

Mrs. Anusha Kotte, W/o.Mr.N.Soma Sekhar, Aged 39 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.1-16-42, Flat No. 53, Nest Harmony, Near Darga, Venkatapuram Secunderabad - 500015.

¶12

...... Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

: I'lR. T. Raghunath

Defendants

: Ex-parte
O, *t

oA.NO.53/2026

::^qLLE& ::

The Applicant Bank Rled the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.70,19,36L/- i.e., a sum of Rs.6,28,691/- towards Cash Credit Loan A/c. No.42600544866 and a sum of Rs.63,90,670l- towards Term Loan A/c. No.42386633918 from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @!4.40o/o^p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶20

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 06.05.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Banoth Shyamala, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through her as Ex, A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.09 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly And severally liable /rl'y1-v

/ /,/ r'\e l,/

oA^{No 63/2026}

to^{the Applicant Bank with futureinterest} to^{pay the oA claim} and^costs' present^{Original ApplicationNo 63/2026is} result,^the

¶30

In^the result,^the as^{under: -}

¶31

allowed

¶32

i) rhe^Defendants :re "i":T:",'::J":"::i'l liable^{to pay to the_ Appll} i.e.,^asumof

¶33

sum^{or Rs.7o,rr,::::rash} credit Loan Rs.6,28,691/-^towards _L'- a sum of A/c.No.42600s44866 :l rerm^Loan Rs.63,90,670/-^t:*"1 future^interest

¶34

A/c^{No 42386633:tt,^*::".} the date^of @9.150/o^pasimplelI tit'^{the date of realization;}

¶35

]'u*

¶36

ii\ the^{OA claim issecured bY way of} ) lJ;";"; ",::",i"'::;: :l: schedule^{annexed to} il;""-t^{bank is entitledto proceedagainst} the^{same to realise its debt;}

¶37

ii i )^{th ea p p'canto'l:]'^." n".} ;;t't:il:^J:"i""; -o""i"nount"ot against^{the Person} realization^{of its dues;}

¶38

iv)^{the apPlicantbank is entitledfor the costs'} Bank^{is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks}

¶39

1. The^APPlicant of receiPt^{of this Order'}

¶40

from^{the date}

¶41

Issue^{RecoveryCertificate accordingly'}

¶42

¶43

oA.No.63/2026

¶44

Commun roi.t.t"ji"i::t:^: st'eno'^t.PY corrected'^ofthis order ro the this the ii;;::" Dav or,;r, ilj.,rlo' sisned '; ;;;;.3rt;l';t" ;,?:il:;3;uu o,

¶45

{.'

¶46

'ruHil,trH,,,H?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Vikasika Enterprises Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Vikasika Enterprises Private Limited

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

Yes Bank Limited. versus Myadam Narsimulu

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Omsai Professional Detective And Security Services Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Yozee Associates

Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/s. Bhole Shankar Furniture.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Gantala Shankar