Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Guruvindapally Ratna Prabha

DRT24 Oct 2025OA/235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 26,55,917 with interest. The bank established its claim via witness examination and verified documents, as the defendant failed to file a written statement. The tribunal issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of total sum of Rs. 26,55,917 with future interest at 13.20% and 13.55% p.a., costs, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Guruvindapally Ratna Prabha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24rH DAy OF OCTOBER,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.235 ot 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex, (Commuter Amenity Centre) Koti, Hyderabad, TS.

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Smt Guruvindapally Ratna Prabha,

¶11

w/o Z. Jogaiah, major, male,

¶12

R/o H. No. 5-2 -123 /P44, Medical

¶13

And health colony, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶14

The Head Master,

¶15

Bioscience, ZPHS Raipole, K.V. Rangareddy - 501 508.

¶16

(proforma party)

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Parties:

¶19

For the Applicant

¶20

For the Defendant

¶21

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶22

Exparte

¶23

Defendant no.1 Sri D. Nithin //A Reserved on /(}r!rt6.t0.2025 fJF Pronounced 24.10.2025 2 { 0[I 2fs Uploaded in 24.t0.2025

¶24

(oA.23sl202s)

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.26,55,917l- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen only) i.e.,

¶27

a) A sum of Rs.18,05,788/- with further interest @ 13.20olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

b) A sum of Rs.8,50,129l- with further interest @ 13.55o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization.

¶29

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 availed personal loan for a sum of Rs.21,gg,400/_ on L0.5.2022. and agreed to repay in 72 EMIs @ Rs.41,g79l-. The defendant also availed xpress credit Elite personal loan of Rs.g.50 lakhs on 05.09.2023 and agreed to repay in 72 EMIs @ Rs.16,420l-. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and legal notice was issued on 14.05.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding.

¶30

Hence this OA.

¶31

-,- i*::"'.--. "-
,.{' 'ir-':.:- ,.i:' . - '..,.' :, l.it'
3.
Defend4rifiNo.2 .ealled aDSFitand set exparte on 18.09.2025. SriD.
t'i ,iiu *j.ljr 'A\
Nithi4filed vakalafti on behaftfi defendant no.1 but faired to file ws.
i; 2 r 0[r 2{}25 :il
It ;ll
io l-it ,S,. .:].,:::,il
.,.
,,....; -'t., '1.,''.-""'''r-'" il:'-;,11'-,1r,_ ::,j 1
i *..U izj=:I:.. ...,,r,
=:,;::-.;:#

¶32

loA.23s/202s1

¶33

n. Smt K. Geetha Lakshmi, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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?

¶36

Defendant No.2 remained exparte. Defendant no,1 filed vakalath but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.11. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶37

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant No.1 is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.26,55,9L7 l- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen only) i.€.,

¶38

a)A 5,788/- with further interest @ 13.20olo p.a n till the date of realization; ly sum of Rs.8.50. with further interest @ 13.55olo p.a from 1 ,, ffT JIIJE, rdate of application till' e date of realization.

¶39

..:

¶40

(oA.23s/2o2sl

¶41

The Appricant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

10, The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶43

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

¶44

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24s day of Oct, 2025)

¶47

sdl-

¶48

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

J ?rocTzms :
'-l Ya ra/t
W**-#

¶50

fr/ivf;%n
lsst ,l'ogistiar
DRT.I" HY'DERABAD.

¶51

State Bank of India v. Smt. Guruvindapally Ratna Prabha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Guruvindapally Ratna Prabha

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

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited

K Sarojana versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sujatha Spices

P Devender Rao versus Union Bank of India