Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Mavurappu Saritha, D/O Mr. J. Muthyalu

DRT6 Nov 2025OA/629/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against Cognizant Tech Solutions Pvt Ltd for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 23,63,801/- with interest and future interest on default.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 23,63,801/- with future interest and costs; applicant entitled to proceed against person and properties for realization.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Mavurappu Saritha, D/O Mr. J. Muthyalu — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY. AT HYDERABAD DArED rHIs rHE o6rH I-RIBUNAL-Ir ot NoVEMBER, 2o2s pREsENr: .r. rurr* ;Jot o*.ridii:%tiri.tu? '^{L'LB.(Hons.),} M.A.

¶2

Original Application No: 629 oF 2025

¶3

State Bank of India.. ffi Iff :il:nnil';:t:X;;".,nou.,o"o

¶4

.....Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

3i,'llJl'.',i'xlJ.l"' ililli#f'f,ffi Hanlanbasti, H1, Street No.1, Kakatiyanagar Hyderabad, Telangana _ SOOOOZ.

¶7

Also at: -

¶8

Cognizant Tech. Solutions pvt Ltd., HI.Tech City, Shaikpet, Hyderabad r erangana - 500081.

¶9

......Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Ajgal Ravi Babu

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: oRDER ::

The Appllcant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,63,801/- towards Xpress Credit Loan A/ c.No.42532g47 483 from the defendant with future interest @11.15olo p.a. with monthty rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 09.10.2025-as ca lled absent and no representation. ,..^<4

¶16

oA.No.529/2025

¶17

-' ""'

¶18

rhe^{Appficant Bank exami ned ]r.ilTl;j"il} f ::::: J;^{^*} marked^{o7 documentsthrough}

¶19

Heard^{the Ld' Counselfor the ApplicantBank and perused the} material Placed^{on record'}

¶20

¶21

The^{point that arises for considerationis:-}

¶22

whether^{the ApplicantBank is entitle'd for} the claim^{made in the OA against the} Defendant?

¶23

As stated^{supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte'The Evidence} Affidavit coupled^{with the recitals in the documents viz} '^{Exs A'1 to} A.O7 marked^{on behalfof the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of} the Applicant^{Bank againstthe Defendant'Hence' I hold that the} Defendant is^{liableto pay the OA claimto the Applicant Bank with} future interest^{and costs.}

¶24

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo'629/2025 is} allowed as^{under: -}

¶25

i) The Defendant^{is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.23,63,801/- towards^{Xpress Credit Loan} A1c.No.42532847483 with^{future [email protected]/o} p.a. simple, from the date of application till the^{date of} realization;

¶26

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^{proceed agalnst} the^person and properties of the defendant for realization of its d ues;

¶27

bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

iii) the a^pplica nt

ow"

oA.No.629l202s

B. The Appricant Bank is directed to fire cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Clmmunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcrib-ed by him, corrected, ig^J .ro pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06th day of November, 2025).

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Mavurappu Saritha, D/O Mr. J. Muthyalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Mavurappu Saritha, D/O Mr. J. Muthyalu

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Anjanadri Impex

Idfc First Bank Limited "Now" versus Dnrs Infracon

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Lakshmi Latha Industries.

Union Bank of India versus Pusala Rajender

Idfc First Bank Limited "Now" versus Abdul Wadood Ahmed

Bank of India versus Sri Sai Pradeep Keetharaju