Allowed

State Bank of India v. Hanumanthu

DRT6 Aug 2025OA/58/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim for loan dues and costs against the defendant, directing the issuance of a recovery certificate and sale of the defendant's properties for realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.23,19,492/- with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued; proceedings against person and properties authorized.

State Bank of India versus Hanumanthu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

]N THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 5g OF 2025

¶4

State Bank of India., Vanasthalipuram Branch Opposite Police Station Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy. l.iep. by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hir nu ma nthu, S/o. Venkataiah Alted about 43 Years, Occ: Employee H.No.2-100, Near Primary School Kokkalonipally, Gandeed, Mahabubnagar,5O9001.

¶8

......Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. R.Aru na

Defenda nts

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a totat sum of Rs.23,19,492/- i.e., a sum of Rs.20,30,886/- towards Loan A/c.No.41521738701 with interest @11,90olo p.a. and a sum of Rs.2,88,606/- towards Loan Alc.No.42687772701 with interest @12.40%^p.a. from the defendant with future interest @ 1go/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶14

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 28.03,2025 as called absent :,,r and d,,u ,uno reptcu r esentation./ft\ne>etruuvrTfffO\Lq

¶15

OA,No.s8/2025

¶16

¶17

The Applicant^{Bank examinedSarala,} Legal Manager^{as AW-1and} marked OB documents^{through him as} Ex. A.1 to Ex.^A.8.

¶18

Heard the^{Ld. Counsel for the ApplicantBank Perused the material} placed on record.

¶19

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

¶20

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled for} the claim made in^{the oA againstthe} Defendant?

¶21

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remained ex-parte The Evidence} Affidavit coupled^{withthe recitals in the documents viz', Exs A l to} A.8 marked on^{behalfof the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the} Applicant Bank against^{the DefendantHence, Ihold that the} Defendant is^{liableto pay the OA claimto the Applicant Bank with} future interest^{and costs.}

¶22

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo 58/2025 ls allowed} as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendant^{is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a} total sum of Rs.23,19,492/-^{i.e., asum of} Rs.20,30,886/- towards^{Loan A/c. No.41521738701and} a sum of Rs.2,88,606/-^{towards Loan A/c' No} 42687172701i with^{futureinterest @11'9070p a'} simple, from the date^{of applicationtill the date of} realizatlon;

¶24

ii) the applicant bank is^{also entitled to proceed against} the^person and^{prope4ies of the defendantfor} realization of its dues; -CN*"

¶25

OA.No.58/2025

¶26

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

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 05th day of August, 2025) .

¶31

fu"e

¶32

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Hanumanthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Hanumanthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Vara Lakshmi

Abhilash Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Adusumalli Surendra

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sundaramoorthy Auto Care Centre

Hdfc Bank versus a Ashwin

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited versus Syed Masthan Babula