Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding loans, interest, and costs against three defendants who were guarantors, rejecting their defenses regarding RBI guidelines and limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE lOrH DAy OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER
OA.No.32O ot 2024
Between:
State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-2, (SARB-2) 1-B-563/1, 1st floor, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC X roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager
Applicant
VERSUS
Counsel for the Pa For the Applicant Satyanarayana Defendants Sampath Kumar
(oA. No.320/2024)
ORDER
As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.2 was the proprietor of defendant no.1 along with defendant no.3 availed cash credit loan of Rs.40.00 lakhs on 18.09.2018. Defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors and executed guarantee agreement dated 18.09.2018 and also deposited Regd Sale deed no.1908/2009 and Regd sate deed no.t265/2016 dated 04.04.2016. subsequently the CC limit has been restructured to Rs.30.00 lakhs and WCTL loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs respectively on 12.06.2020. l"he defendants executed supplemental agreement of :--i. loan cum , tbzOj tt is submitted by the Applicant bank the said loan facilities ,E"0d,g$ ti;
(oA.No.320/2024)
and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 07.08.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.64,L2,7LL/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven only) with further interest @ 15.55o/o p.a and lt.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.
(oA.No.320/2024)
Point No.i)r
(oA. No.320/2024)
applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defenda nts. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.
Point No.ii)
The Defendants arejointly and severally liable topay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.64,12,71L1'(Rupees Sixty FourLakhs Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven only) i.e.,
(oA. No.320/2024)
(Dictatedtothel).A,transctibcdbyher,corrected,slgn(ldandpronouncedbymeintheopencourton thrs the 10t' day of SCPI'2025)
sd/_
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
.dt
: 1o stP 2n7s :
-5
E,
ji:,.:l .,iJ.;Ir
:.. 1-i, ',1.. j." ,l'." :
-i
n'I'RUE COPY
L/ sU---:
A-w--
6148.qC.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant Bank had proved its claim against the defendants?
To what relief should the applicant be entitled?
State Bank of India
Sri K. Yogesh
Sri Kadam Laxmana Rao
Sri Mangesh Laxmana Rao Kadam
Gummadip Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
