Allowed

State Bank of India v. Thathari Naveen Kumar

DRT23 Jun 2025OA/44/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against a defendant. The defendant remained ex-parte. The court held the claim was authenticated by the applicant's evidence and documents. The defendant was liable to pay the sum due with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs.20,64,755/- with future interest @ 11.15% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Thathari Naveen Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RO DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, B,COM., L.LB. (HONS.), 14.A, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Apptication No: 44 OF 2025

¶4

State Bank of India., Vanasthalipuram Branch, Opposite Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy. Rep, by its Authorised Officer.

¶5

...Applica nt

¶6

Versus

¶7

Thathari Naveen Kumar, S/o. Lingam, Aged about 33 Years, Occ: Employee, H.No.l2-7 -L47/B/7, New Mettug uda, Hyderabad - 500017.

¶8

. ..... Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. R.Aruna Defendants : Ex-parte

¶10

:: ORDER ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.20,64,755/- from the defendant with future interest @11.15olo p.a, from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶12

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement unclaimed, hence deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 01 .O4.2025 as called absent and no representation . ,b1d6f ---- ',/-1J""

¶13

oA.No.44l2025

¶14

The Applicant^{Bank examined D.Ramesh, Asst Manager as Aw-1} and marked^{05 documentsthrough himas Ex A l to Ex' A'05'}

¶15

Ld. Counsel for^{the ApplicantBank stated orders may be passed on} merits. Perused the^{materialplaced on record'}

¶16

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

¶17

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled for} the claim made in the^{OA against the} Defendant?

¶18

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remained ex-parte'The Evidence} Affidavit coupled^with the^{recitals in the documents viz', Exs A l to} A.05 marked on behalf of^{the Applicant Bank clinches the claimof} the Appllcant Bank^{againstthe Defendant'Hence, I hold that the} Defendant is liable to^{pay the OA claimto the Applicant Bank with} future interest and^costs.

¶19

In the result, the^{present OriginalApplicationNo.4412025is allowed} as under:^-

¶20

i) The Defendant is^{liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.20,64,755/- with^{future interest @ 11.15o/o} p.a. simple, from the date of application^{till the date of} realization;

¶21

ii) the applicant bank is^{also entitled to proceed against} the person and^propertles of^{the defendantfor} realization of its dues;

¶22

iii) the appricant bank is entitled^{tor rh"} ro*7fuOVt

¶23

OA.No.44l2025

¶24

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

¶25

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23Ro day of June, 2025) .

¶27

OY** (RffiESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Thathari Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Thathari Naveen Kumar

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Jatoth Ramachandru

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. G.D. Textiles

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. 3C Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Thanikonda Jayakrishna

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S. Denimhub Life Style Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Gajjala Madanamohan Reddy