Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

DRT26 Aug 2025OA/18/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of debts, the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed the application filed by State Bank of India against two respondents, including the borrower and his employer. The bank sought recovery of a total sum of Rs. 23,61,461 including interest. As the defendants appeared ex-parte, the court examined the bank manager who submitted documents substantiating the loan agreements and non-performance. The tribunal held that the bank established its claim and ordered the recovery of the principal amount along with future interest and costs, directing the employer to remit the employee's salary.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of a total sum of Rs. 23,61,461 comprising two loan accounts with interest; direction to Defendant No.2 (employer) to remit salary; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 26rH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER OA.No.18 of 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery^Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter AmenitY Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. TS. Represented by its Chief Manager Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Mr. Peketi Raia Sekhar, Designation : SSTE/^P I 1/TQ/SC, Employee No. 24 10 1976060, H. No. 10-289/5, VasanthPuri Colony, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy district, TS- 500 047.

¶8

The Chief Engineer, 7th floor, Rail NilaYam, Secunderabad - 500 017. (for Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar Designation : SSTE/^P /^!/TTQ/SC, Employee No. 2410¹ 976060) Defenda nts

¶9

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant ri C. Sreedhar For the Defendant rte

¶10

(oA.No.18/202s)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,61,461l- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Sixty One thousand Four Hundred and Sixty One only) i.e.,

¶13

a) A sum of Rs.11,91,758/- under loan A/c.No.40234900687 with interest @ r2o/o p.a with monthry rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realization ;

¶14

b) A sum of Rs.11,69,703/- under loan A/c.No.41078953957 with interest @ 13.50o/o p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA till the date of realization ;

¶15

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 availed personal loan under the scheme of Xpress Credit Elite facility/ term loan of Rs.17,39,000/- to meet personal requirement vide letter oF arrangement dated 17.06.202t. The defendant no.1 is the employee of Railways department availed Xpress Credit Elite scheme for a sum of Rs.15,45,000/- and executed personal loan agreement dated 27.06.2022. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant ba d the account as NPA on 25.02.2024 and legal .2024. Inspite of several requests 2 E^AlJ0 2fi25

¶16

(oA.No.18/202s)

¶17

and demands, the defendants did noi clear the outstanding. Hence

¶18

this OA.

¶19

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 18.08.2025.

¶20

Sri P. Yadav, Manager of the Applicant Bank^{examined himselfas AW.1} and exhibited relevant documents, which are^marked as^{Ex.A.1 to} A.15.

¶21

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank.}

¶22

The^point that arise^{for consideration is whether the ApplicantBank is} entitled for the claim madeⁱⁿ the oA^{against the Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶23

Defendants remained^{exparte.To substantiatethe case of the} Applicant Bank, AW.1,^{official of the Applicant Bank was examinedand} he exhibited relevant^{documentsas Ex.A1 to A.15. In view of the} above, I hold that^{the Applicant Bank has establishedtheir claim made} intheoAagainsttheDefendantsandhencetheApplicantBankis entitled to recover the claim^{made in the oA with future interest and} costs.

¶24

B. In the result, the^{present OA is allowed with costs, as under:} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a total} sum pees TwentY Three Lakhs^SixtY One

¶25

thousarld and Sixty One only)^i.e.,

¶26

(OA.No.18/202s)

¶27

a) A sum of Rs.11,91,758/- under loan A/c.No.40234900687 with interest @ l2o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶28

b) A sum of Rs.11,69,703/- under loan A/c.No.41078953957 with interest @ 13.500/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶29

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

The Defendant no.2 is employer of defendant no.1, is hereby directed to remit the monthly salary with the Applicant bank subject to prevailing ru les.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P,A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on Aug,2025)

¶36

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
* zEruoms I TRUE COPY PRESIDING OFFICER
,""r"Yr#X,,
t>RTd, H|i,:RA3l^.

State Bank of India v. Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

M S P v Amarnadha Prasad and Co. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Suryanarayana J

Canara Bank versus Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepelli Mahesh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils