Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Hundred Lab Services.

DRT3 Feb 2026OA/667/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of a term loan. The defendants were present ex-parte. The court upheld the bank's claim and liability of the defendants to pay the outstanding amount with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.24,11,274/- with future interest at 8.90% p.a.; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Hundred Lab… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

'4,1-i

@IO{VIER\I}EFR

,,,$,a

DATED THIS THE O3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

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

¶6

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶7

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 667 OF 2025

¶8

StateBankof India., AgriMSMECredit Centre(AMCC) GroundFloor,RegionalBusiness Office (RBO),VSRMansions,Opp:Officers Club,Nagarajupeta,Kadapa,YSRKadapaDistrict. Rep.by its ChiefManager. .....Applicant. Versus
1.M/s. HundredLabServices., A Partnership Firm,RepbyitsPartners The Defendants 2 &3herein H.No.13-3BA,BesideAndhraPragathi GrameenaBank,PulivendulaRoad VempallyPostandMandal YSRKadapaDistrict-516329.
2.Sri.NettikoppulaVijayKumar S/o. Sri.N.Naganna, Agedabout 42Years,Male,Occ:Business & Partnerof1stDefendantFirm D.No.13/BBA, Opp.GovtHospital VempalliPostandMandal YSRKadapaDistrict-5t6329.
3.Sri.Manchala Naveen Kumar S/o.Sri.M.Raju,Agedabout26Years Male,Occ:Business&Partnerof1stdefendant firm D.No.5/85(B),Market Street, VempalliPost AndMandal,YSRKadapaDistrict-516329. ...Defendants
Counselfor theApplicant :Mr.G.PrabhakarSarma
Deferldants :Ex-parte 6ry6*

oA.NO.667l2025

::^qLLEL ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recovery a total} sum ot Rs.24,77,274l- towards Term Loan A/c.^No. 41761096371 from the defendants^jointly and^{severallywith} future interest @11.15%^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.

¶13

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set ex-parte on 13.10.2025 as called absent and no representatlon.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined D Raghavendra Rao, Legal lvlanager, as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.13.

¶15

Heard the Ld. counsel for the Applicant Bank. ierused the material placed on record.

¶16

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶17

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

¶18

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the, documents viz.. Exs. A.1 to A.13 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 to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. eryo"U

¶19

oA.NO.667/202s

¶20

In the result, the^present Original Application No.66712025^is allowed as under:^-

¶21

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a^{sum of} Rs.24,11,274l- towards Term^Loan A/c.^No. 4176109637t with future interest @8.90o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

ii) the OA claim is secured bY^{way of} hypothecation of assets described^{in the} schedule annexed to the^{OA and the} applicant bank is entitled^{to proceed against} the same to realise^{its debU}

¶23

iii) the applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceed} against the^person and^propertiesof defendants for^{realization of its dues;}

¶24

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶25

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to^{file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this^Order.

¶26

Issue' Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶27

concerned.

¶28

1. Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties} (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by me} in the open court^on this the 03'd Day of^{February, 2026).}

¶29

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/s. Hundred Lab Services.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Hundred Lab Services.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Medicure Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/S Mdh Tvs

nawazkhantraders versus shriramtransportfinancecompany

Bank of India versus M/s. Devi Marketing.

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Bhagya Laxmi Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Sujan. M