Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rasheed

DRT18 Jul 2025OA/115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under the DRAT, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim for recovery of a loan facility defaulted by the defendant. The bank established its case, and the tribunal ordered recovery of principal, future interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA; Ordered defendant to pay principal Rs. 2,63,246/- plus future interest @ 13.55% p.a.; Recovery certificate issued; Costs awarded to applicant.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammad Abdul… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY'2O25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

oA.NO.115 0F 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, (SARB-2) 1-8-563/L, 1st ftoor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, T.S. Represented by its Chief Manager Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. MohammadAbdul Rasheed, s/o KhajaMoinuddin, aged 43 years, occ: employee, R/o H.No.9-129, Near SVR Talkies, Neruducharla Mandal, Nalgonda district Nalgonda - 508 218. Defendant

¶9

Counsel for Parties:

¶10

For the Applicant : Sri Hari Prasad Podila

For the Defendant

:Exparte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery

¶15

gf a total sum of Rs.2L 63,246l- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thousand Two Hundred and Fofi six only) with I futu re @ 13.55% p.a with monthly rests from date of *hl 1 [^{,,H}p0ffiion till ihe date of reatization.} r{i.

¶16

L.;.,

¶17

(oA. No.115/202s)

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant availed credit facility under Xpress credit scheme for a sum of Rs.25.00 rakhs on 09.7L.2022. To secure the due repayment of loan facility, the defendant executed personal loan agreement dated 09.11.2022. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendant faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued legal notice dated 17.02.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 07.07.2025.

¶20

4' Sri M. Ravinder, chief Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A.9.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶23

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed

¶24

absent and set exparte. ro substantiate the case or

¶25

/ffi;iufut & t he-Anffip p ricani"qpnk, plicant Qpnk, AW.1, officia r l of the App rl icant Bank was examined

¶26

1 8.dtl"t&nibiiiid rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.9. rn view of the

¶27

S$o,,*-rt$f' \&&tryr'

¶28

(oA.No.11sl202s)

¶29

above, I hold that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶30

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2L,63,246/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty six only) with future interest @ 13.55o/o p.a from date of appricationtiil the date of rearization.

¶31

The Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant toward realization of the debt due.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly

¶35

copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

l Drctat.rt I , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the
'ooen cou rt on
.l'- - : 8th day of July' 2025)
,l-
sd/-
10JUL?ffi

¶37

sd/' (c. GoPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rasheed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rasheed

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kanaka Durga Transport

Dhansingh Hari Singh versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bandaru Srinivasa Rao

Ravi Kumar Ramagalla versus Sriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri. Pavali Venkata Ramanaiah

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Jaya Mercy Asheervadam Perumalla