Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Ciddagouni Tarun Kumar Goud

DRT13 Nov 2025OA/218/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under DRT, the Bank sought recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 65,60,584/- with interest. The Tribunal held that the Bank established its claim and allowed the OA, making the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.65.60 lakhs + interest @12.8%p.a + costs; Recovery Certificate issued; Leave to proceed against mortgaged property granted.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Ciddagouni Tarun Kumar Goud — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IAT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2025 PRESENT: SRI GUMMAD| cOptCHAND, pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 218 OF 2025

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (SARB), 2nd Floor, TSRTC CommuterAmenity Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad,

¶5

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri. Ciddagouni Tarun Kumar Goud, S/o Sri. Ciddagouni^prakash Goud, Aged about 34 years, Male, Occ: Business. H.No. 1-9-18/5, Ram Nagar, Near lndian Bank, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶9

Also At:

¶10

H.No.2-2-18t4114/6, ptot No. 839, Near Ahobilmath Temple, DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶11

(OA. No. 218/202s)

¶12

Sri. Ciddagouni^prakash Goud, S/o Sri. Ciddagouni Gopal Goud, Aged about 56 years, Male, Occ: Business.

¶13

H.No. 1-9-'18/5, Ram Nagar, Near lndian Bank, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶14

Also At :

¶15

H.No.2-2-18t4114/6, ptot No. 839, Near Ahobilmath Temple, DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶16

Sri. Ciddagouni Sunitha, S/o Sri. Ciddagouni^prakash Goud, Aged about 54 years, Female,

¶17

Occ: Business.

¶18

H.No. 1-9-18/5, Ram Nagar, Near lndian Bank, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶19

Also At :

¶20

H.No.2-2-18t41/N6, ptot No. B39, Near Ahobilmath Temple, DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 020

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the parties :

¶23

13il0t/

¶24

(oA. No. 2181202s)

¶25

For TheApplicant	G.Prabhakar Sarma,
Forthe Defendants	Kapish KumarTiwari
Reservedon	10.11.2025
Pronouncedon	13.11.2025
Uploadinwebsiteon	13.11.2025

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.65,60,5g4/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Four Only) together with interest @ 12.80o/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule to OA.

¶28

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendants availed Term Loan (LAp) of Rs.72 Lakhs with interest @8.80% p.a with monthly rests and executed Agreement of Loan dated 21.12.2020 in favor of the Appticant Bank.The Defendant No.1 created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule to OA by depositing original registered Gift Deed to the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA and issued Legal notice on 05:os,2o2s. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendaht did not clearllheoutstandlng. Hence this OA. :,. ,. .,,,-

¶29

(OA. No. 2181202s)

¶30

Sri. Kapish Kumar Tiwari fired Vakarat on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 3 . Even after the lapse of 45 Days WS of Dl to D3 not filed and hence the right of filing of ws of D1 to D3 forfeited on 10.09.2025.

¶31

Sri. Sandeep Paridala, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶32

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

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?

¶34

Defendants not filed their ws even after availing sufficient time. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.13. rn view of the above, r hord that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶35

ln the resUlt, the.pnesent OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶36

, Ii:
.--
: -:,
, i I :.;. ala
,i
.,_l
":;"vEl!Y'-,4

¶37

(OA. No.2]^8lzo2s)

¶38

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a totar sum of Rs.65,6o,sg4/- (Rupees sixty Five Lakhs sixty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Four only) together with interest @ 12.goo/o p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶39

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property mentioned in the schedules A and B to the oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 1 to 3 towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

That Applicant Bank is entitted to the costs of the oA.

¶42

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

¶43

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of Nov, 2025)

¶46

¶47

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri. Ciddagouni Tarun Kumar Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Ciddagouni Tarun Kumar Goud

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

State Bank of India versus Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (Died)

Sai Balaji Function Hall versus State Bank of India

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao versus Axis Bank

Stephen Lamination Plant versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Smt. Boddepalli Nirmala

Canara Bank versus Sri Sura Jyothi Kalyan