Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Raja Rajeshwara Industries

DRT7 May 2026OA/85/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Order Application filed by State Bank of India against three respondents for non-payment of loan. The bank was granted recovery of the principal sum with interest and Entitlement to proceed against hypothecated and mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Debt recovery of Rs.48,64,832 with interest; permission to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged property and personal properties of defendants.

State Bank of India versus M/S Raja Rajeshwara Industries — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OTth DAY OF MAY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPICHAND,^pREStD|NG OFFTCER

¶4

OA. No.85 OF 2026

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd Floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti,

¶7

Hyderabad - 500 095 Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Raja Rajeshwara lndustries, A Partnership Firm Represented by its Partners,

¶11

Defendants No. 2 and 3

¶12

Sy.No. 26414, Amudatapalty Viilage, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District - 505 470,

¶13

Sri. Challa Ailaiah,

¶14

S/o. Sri. Kanakaiah,

¶15

52 years, Male,

¶16

-e*;;HsBf Z$attneq$1i lpH.No.aff,^r Village, +^{Kariman-dgarDistiicl} 505 490 12 ilAYr1;ZE^E - b,n*,*"*W we?ry

¶17

(OA. No. 8s/2026)

¶18

3.Sri. KannaboinaSammaiah. S/o. Sri. Odelu,
Aged about56years,Male,
Occ:Business and
Partnerof1st Defendant
H.No.3-42lA, Amudalapallyvillage, ShankarapatnamMandal,
KarimnagarDistrict-505 470	Defendants
Counsel forthe parties:
For TheApplicant	Mr. G. Prabhakar Sarma
Forthe DefendantsNo.1	Sri. S Srikanth
Forthe DefendantsNo.2and3	Exparte
Reservedon	06.05.2026
Pronouncedon	07.05.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	12.05.2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶21

of a total sum of Rs.48,64,832.00 Ps. (Rupees Forty Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Only) with interest @ 14.15o/o p.a with monthly the date of this application till the date of i 1 2 [fi?tgnz6r,onn*

¶22

(oA. No. 8s/2025)

¶23

realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Properties A and B to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a Partnership Firm represented by its Partners Defendants No. 2 and 3 availed cash credit loan facility of Rs.95.00 Lakhs and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 01.12.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreements dated 01 .12.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants create equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property A to OA and executed Memorandum for Recording Creation of Mortgage of Deposit of Title deeds dated 0112.2022 and deposited Original Registered Sale Deed dated 24.12.2018 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 02.10.2024 and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 04.10.2024 Possession Notice dated 02.03.2025 -.' "..r.::jarI$:iegEl,lNotice^. -':::'-v]...^{dated10.09.2025to the defendants.lnspite of} li-t'lAl*iE{ffirests^{and demands,the defendantsdid not ctear the} tP o,Wt"noi'i$j\nce this oA. J^{1264yrp2s *} rtl. ?

¶25

Qh*,*"*ddi

¶26

(oA. No. 8s/2025)

¶27

3 Sri. S Srikanth filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendant No.1. Even after the lapse of 45 Days WS of Defendant No.1 did not filed and hence the right of filing of WS of Defendant No.'l was forfeited on 06.05.2026. Defendants No. 2 and 3 called absent and set exparte on 15.04.2026

¶28

Sri. P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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?

¶31

Defendant no. No.1 did not file their WS even after availing sufficient time and hence the right of filing of WS of Defendant No. 1 was forfeited. Defendants No. 2 and 3 called absent exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, I of the Applicant Bank was examined and he * q$ibited documents as Ex.A.1 to A. 16. ln view of the i 1211A?'td2l^hor* at the Applicant Bank has established their claim ts made iri thrd against the Defendants and hence the Applicant inh,"-$9 s';r'tqlZ

¶32

(oA. No. 8s/2026)

¶33

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 Defendants No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.48,64,832.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Two Only) with interest @ 14.15% p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization

¶36

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged^property AS mentioned in the Schedules of the Properties A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

The Applicant Bank is also entltled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants No. 2 and 3 and properties of Defendant No. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

nt Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶39

; 12 llRy roz6 ;
6-. +
W^**''.i

¶40

(OA. No. 8s/2026)

¶41

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

¶42

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P A. transcribed by her corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07rh day ol May 2026)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

F"tiu'<br>J 12 ilAY ?1126 :
W*

State Bank of India v. M/S Raja Rajeshwara Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Raja Rajeshwara Industries

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Ameya Industries

Indian Bank versus M/S. Avirbhava Infratech India Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Lns Bricks

State Bank of India versus M/S Bioeq Care Private Limited

Mr Mohammed Ameenuddin Saleem versus Indian Bank