Allowed

State Bank of India v. Digital Technology Services, Rep. by Its Proprietor

DRT24 Oct 2025OA/221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Or App before the DRT Hyderabad, the Bank claimed recovery of a CC loan. Upon defendants' ex-parte status and evidence review, the court held they are jointly and severally liable. The OA was allowed, directing payment of the principal sum, future interest, and securing the claim via hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.21,06,370.30 towards CC loan with future interest @12.65% p.a. along with costs and recovery certificate issued; claim secured by hypothecated assets.

State Bank of India versus Digital Technology… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR PRESI#flIT;FBI'ccE'fl '^{L LB' (Hons )' M A'}

¶3

oRIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 221 oF 2025

¶4

State Bank of India.. SMECC Branch, Cyberabad No.L2-6-39/ A/2F, Y Function Kukatpa y, Hyderabad _ 500097 Medchal/Malkajqiri District. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Digita I Technology Services., Rep by its^proprietor :l-a!^{No;101: V Btock, Hi VisionResidency} Kompally, Medchat/Matkajgiri District Hyderabad - 500014.

¶8

Also at:Digital Technology Services.. Rep by its^proprietor, gth Floor Flat No.903, VSS Nadadeep Apartments VSS Projects,^{pet-Basheerabad} Medchal/Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad-500067.

¶9

Ishika Bharke, W/o.Sadhu Jaya Krishna, Female, Major, R/o.Flat No.104 V Block, Hi Vision Residency Kompally, Medchal/Malkajgiri Dtstrict Hyderabad - 500014.

¶10

... Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applica nt

¶12

Defendants

¶13

: M/s. P. V. Satyanarayana :Ex-parte /frr^L./^,f 1/ "t^'t"

oA.NO.221l2025

:: ORDER^::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of^{Rs'21,06,37030ps towards CC Loan from the} defendants^{jointlyand severallywith future interest @1465o/o} p.a. at monthly^{rests fromthe date of application till the date of} realization^{along with costs and in default for sale of} hypothecated^assets'

¶18

paper Publication.^TheY

¶19

1. Summons^{served on D1 and 2 through} called absent^{and no}

¶20

were set^{ex-Parteon 25 '07 2025as} representation.

¶21

The Applicant^{Bank examinedB Raj Sumanth Kumar' Chief} Manager,^{as Aw-1 and marked 05 documentsthrough himas} Ex. A.1 to^{Ex. A.05.}

¶22

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the Applicant Bank' Perused the} material Placed^{on record.}

¶23

The^point that^{arises for considerationis:-}

¶24

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendants and^{OA hYpothecated} assets?

¶25

As stated supra,^{the Defendants remained ex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitalsin the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to^{A.O5 marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the^{claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendantsare jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the OA^claim to^{the ApplicantBank.withfuture interest} and costs. ,49',rof' /)/'^<rtt\r

¶26

oA.NO.ZZtl2025

¶27

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No'221/2025} allowed as under:^-

¶28

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the Applicant^Bank a^{sum of} Rs.21,06,370.30ps towards CC Loan^with future interest @12.65olo^{p.a. simple from the} date of application till^{the date of realization;}

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured bY way^of hypothecation of assets described^{in the} schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank^is entitled to^{proceed against} the same to realise its debt;

¶30

iii ) the applicant bank is also^{entitledto proceed} against the^person and^{properties of} defendants for realization^{of its dues;}

¶31

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶32

B. The Applicant Bank is directed^{to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt^{of this Order.}

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed^{and pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 24th Day of October,^2025).

¶35

r)w** lnArffrsnwRR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Digital Technology Services, Rep. by Its Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Digital Technology Services, Rep. by Its Proprietor

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

Icici Bank Limited versus K R Agency

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Rabbani Silk Emporium

T Lalitha Kalyani versus State Bank of India

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Jetpat Komuraiah

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. G. Veera Gangadhara Kasi

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Aveng Automine Pvt. Ltd.