Allowed

State Bank of India v. Gangaram Krishna Reddy

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/190/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of approximately Rs. 20.68 lakhs with interest and costs from a defaulting defendant who appeared ex-parte. The court held that the evidence and documents on record clinched the bank's claim and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 20,68,921/- plus 11.6% p.a. simple interest from application date, costs awarded, and Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Gangaram Krishna Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 190 OF 2025

¶4

State Bank of India., Aronodayanaga r Branch, Nagole 2-3-916, Road No.1, Arunodaya nagar Nagole, 14edchal-Malkajgiri District. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Gangaram krishna Reddy, S/o.Not Known To Applicant, Major, Occ: Advocate Flat No.303, Thirumala Crest Apartments Road No.2, Defence Colony, Karmanghat Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500060.

¶8

Defend a nt

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. Rapaka Aruna Defendants : Ex-parteEx-parte

¶10

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.20,68,927/ - from the defendant with future interest @11.600/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 29.07.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶14

7)W4r.l"

¶15

OA.No.190/202s

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined G. Myna, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 05 documents through^him as^{Ex. A.1} to^{Ex. A.05.}

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and^{perused the} material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant^remained ex-parte.^{The Evidence} Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz.,^Exs.A.1to A.O5 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the^claimof the Applicant Bank against the Defendant.^Hence, I^{hold that the} Defendant is liable to^pay the OA claim to the^{Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the Present Original^{Application No.190/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.20,68,921/- with future^interest @11.600/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainst} the person and^properties of^{the defendantfor} realization of lts dues;

¶24

iii) the applicant bank is entltled^{for the costs.} OY**

¶25

OA.No.190/2025

¶26

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19rh day of November, 2025).

¶29

k*r ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Gangaram Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Gangaram Krishna Reddy

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sree Vmk Hotels

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Renuka Steel and Hardware

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mythri Techno Solutions Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/s. Faheem Plastics.

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Panchawati Silks