Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Devunuri Ashok

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/31/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by State Bank of India against Mr. Devunuri Ashok for recovery of dues under credit card and overdraft facilities due to breach of loan terms.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA with costs; Defendant ordered to pay Rs.22,95,123/- with future interest; Application to file cost memo within 2 weeks; Issue of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Devunuri Ashok — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY'2O25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER oA.NO.31 0F 202s

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, (SARB-2) 1-g-563/1, 1't floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadpalty, Hyderabad, T.S. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Devunuri Ashok, S/o Late Laxmiah, aged 57 years, Occ: senior Assistant, Employee no.2114909 O/o Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department,^palakurthy mandal, Jangaon - 506 232

¶9

And also at

¶10

R/o flat no.1O2, Vandana towers, Vikas nagar, WC Hanamlonda, Warangal - 506001.

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Counsel for^pa rties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

Fo r the Defendan{..* --a:^{* -'-;-} -{r'-.

¶15

Sri K. Narayana Rao

¶16

Sri K. Kranthi Kumar

¶17

6*"ir*"$ iig^{2sluL'z6 *} Kft:**w

¶18

(oA.No.31l202s)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,gSAg2l- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Two hundred and Thirty two onty) i.e,,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.IS,44,703/- with subsequent interest @ 11.10o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization.

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.6,82,685/- with subsequent interest @ 11.20olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization.

¶23

c) A sum of Rs.67,844l- with subsequent interest @ 11.10olo p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization.

¶24

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant avaired credit facirity under Xpress credit scheme for a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs; another Xpress Credit loan facility of Rs.7,84,000/- and OD facility of Rs,2.00 lakhs and executed Dp note delivery letter dated 11.t2.2023 in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as {.issued^{legal notice dated 18.11.2024.} Inspite of sevyfi',.ypquests^{'an-'$;\qmands,} the defendant did not clear the //..x " .: *,'r\ ffi,nn.n#"tni3N B^2sluL?w ") E+.

¶25

(oA. No.31l202 s)

¶26

Counser for defendant not fired written statement, hence the right of filing of WS was forfeited on 07.07.2025.

¶27

Sri M. Ravinder, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.Al to A.12.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶30

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed

¶31

for?

¶32

Counsel for defendant filed vakalth 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 rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the

¶33

OA with future interest and.costs.

¶34

'
.-: ..- - ---i*: i'i i
the rEistr t OA is allowed with costs, as under:
9 25lultfrA
R,b#

¶35

(oA.No.31l202s)

¶36

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,95 t232/ - (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Two hundred and Thirty two only) i.e.,

¶37

a) A sum of Rs.t5,44,703/- with subsequent interest @ 11.10olo^p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶38

b) A sum of Rs.6,82,685/- with subsequent interest @ 11.20o/o^p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶39

c) A sum of Rs.67,844/- with subsequent interest @ 11.10%^p.a from date of application till the date of r:ealization.

¶40

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant toward realization of the debt due.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

anscribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the
r'thir y of July' ZOZS)
lp-#ffi"*m,
/'.' 4J r.frsit-t'-)
€ i ls
ii t:f i $ .A\ n
#; z s *i ,o .Jl r\fe c.oPY (G. Gop,.ro-',fJi
\r'S. $r 3lt >4SflltpnEsIDING .FFI.ER
.5"h\ .# #if JssLRos'stl'J,n
cnj+'Tr."nin isao"
*t6WW 4
\i;;{ffiW

State Bank of India v. Mr. Devunuri Ashok

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Devunuri Ashok

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 M/s. Karthikeya Traders

State Bank of India versus Eco Auto Foam Industries

State Bank of India versus Mr. Vishweshwar Rao Gunda

State Bank of India versus M/S. Novelty Reddy and Reddy Motors Private Limited

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah versus State Bank of India

Jahangir Mohd versus Shriram Finance Limited