Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kalidevapura Radha Krishna Reddy

DRT26 Dec 2025OA/264/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of home loan and insurance dues. The respondent failed to appear; the tribunal held the bank's claim supported by the evidence affidavit and adjoined documents. The claim was allowed with interest, secured by mortgaged properties, and a recovery certificate issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs.90,80,385.37 with future interest; claim secured by mortgage; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kalidevapura Radha Krishna Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (HonS,), T4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 264 OF 2025

¶5

State Ba nk of India., SARB Branch, Vijayawada Krishna District. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Kalidevapura Radha krishna Reddy S/o. Sri. K. P. Sidda Reddy, Aged 59 Years H.No.1-7924, Opp. DPO, Ramnagar Extn Ananthapur, Ananthapuram District - 515001.

¶9

. .. Defendant

¶10

: lvlr. A. M. Kiran Kumar Counsel for the Applicant

Defendant

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.90,80,385.37ps i.e., a sum of Rs.85,63,655.05ps towards Home Loan Limit with future interest @10.10% p.a. and a sum of Rs.5,16,730.32ps towards Suraksha Insurance Limit from the defendant with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 27,08.2025 as called absent and no representation Ar"r-. /^(,/

¶16

oA.NO.264l2O2s

¶17

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined L. Amarnadh, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.07.

¶19

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule properties?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of 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.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.264/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.90,80,385.37ps i.€., a sum of Rs.85,63,655.05ps towards Home Loan Limit and a sum of Rs.5, t6,730.32ps towards Suraksha Insurance Limit; with future interest @8.90o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realizarronfr*_

¶25

oA.NO.2641202s

¶26

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

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 26,h Day of December, 2025).

¶32

.,.,,..fr1r*^ rrr| -;5^'r',.'

¶33

lnnrirsHwnR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kalidevapura Radha Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kalidevapura Radha 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

Indian Bank versus M/S. Balaji Agri Chem

Canara Bank versus M/S.Micro Cables

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Potharaju Swamy

Canara Bank versus M/S Aqua Polyplast

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bondili Madhu Reddy

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dandu Prasad