Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sri. Challa Raghupathi Rao

DRT1 Apr 2026OA/106/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an OA for recovery filed against borrowers for a bad loan classified as NPA, the Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the bank successfully established its claim through documentary evidence and ordered payment of the dues with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Relief includes payment of Rs.4,27,44,733/- with future interest, grant of recovery certificate, and entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Challa Raghupathi Rao — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.1O6 of 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra, Kachiguda branch, Ver Savarkar Marg,

¶7

Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Sri Challa Raghupathi Rao, s/o Sri Challa Mallareddy, aged 50 years, occ: business, Plot no.311, Uppal Bhagath village, Uppal mandal, Medchal, Malkajgiri district,

¶11

Hyderabad, TS - 500 039.

¶12

Smt Challa Anitha, w/o Challa Raghupathi Reddy, aged 45 years, occ: housewife, Plot no.311, Uppal Bhagath village, Uppal mandal, Medchal, Malkajgiri district, Hyderabad, TS - 500 039.

¶13

Ms, Challa Manvitha Reddy, D/o Challa Raghupathi Reddy, Aged 25 years, occ: student,

¶14

Hyderabad, TS -

¶15

Defendants
*
rPB 2O2F

¶16

(oA.106/2026)

¶17

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Ms. Sangeetha Jaiswal Defendants Exparte Reserved on 23.03.2026 Pronounced on 0L.04.2026 Uploaded in website on 0r.04.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4t27,44,733/- (Rupees Four Crores Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Three only) i.e.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs,3,84,35,581/- with future interest @ 10.70olo p.a inclusive of penal interest @ 2Yo from 20.12.2025 till the date of realization;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.43,09,152l- with future interest @ 10.85o/o p.a inclusive of penal interest @ 2olo from 20.L2.2025 till the date of realization;

¶22

and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the tion, the Applicant Bank states that defenda 1 and g loan of Rs.3,75,00,000/- vide

¶24

(oA.106/2025)

¶25

sanction letter dated 24.09.2021. The loan was secured by equitable mortgage of schedule^property in favour of applicant bank.^The defendants executed demand^{promissory note, housingloan} agreement and etc, subsequently the defendants^{availededucation} loan of Rs.50,00 lakhs on 05.12.2022 and^{extended the mortgage.} After availing the loan facilities, the^{defendantsfailed to comply the} terms of sanction, hence the applicant^{bank classifiedthe account as} NPA and issued legal notice^dated 04.0t.2026'^{Inspite of several} requests and demands,^{the defendants did not clear the outstanding.} Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendants called^{absent and set exparte on 23.03.2026.}

¶27

Sri srikanth Rao,^{Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himselfas} AW.1 and exhibited^{relevant documents,which are marked as Ex'A'1}

¶28

to A.20.

¶29

Heard the Ld, Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank.}

¶30

The^point that arise^{for consideration is whetherthe Applicant Bank is} entitled for the claim^{made in the OA against the Defendants as} prayed for?

¶31

'^{'-:':ll- ":':': '-"}

¶32

Defendpifts"rjrn#i${rgxparte.^{To substantiatethe case of the} ' .'-! " ?j'".'!.

¶33

AppliCant aa,&|ew. r,ftf\ial^{of the Applicant Bank was examinedand} he exhi&tldlm{mt o#riryents^{as Ex.A1 to A'20. In view of the} ,, .} li'

¶34

"''tv';i ': 3

¶35

. . -.r'^ri -'r; .'.,'r

¶36

(oA.106/2025)

¶37

above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their^{claim made} in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant^Bankis entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future^{interest and} costs.

¶38

In the result, the^present OA^is allowed^{with costs, as under:} The Defendants are^jointly and^{severallyliable to pay to the Applicant} Bank a total sum of Rs.4,27,44,7331-^{(Rupees Four Crores} Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty^{FourThousand Seven Hundredand} Thirty Three only) i.e.,

¶39

a) A sum of Rs.3,84,35,58U-^{with futureinterest@ 10'70olop'a} inclusive of^penal interest @^{2olo from 20'L2.2025 till the date of} realization;

¶40

b) A sum of^{Rs.43,09,152l-with future interest @ 10'85o/o p'a} inclusive of^{penal interest} @^{2olo from 20.L2.2025till the date of} realization;

¶41

The Applicant Bank^is entitled to^proceed against^{the mortgaged} in the schedule to OA^{towards realisation of}

¶42

property as mentioned

¶43

the debt due.

¶44

entitled to^{proceed against the person} and ,r"#;$ffi Rroodtle*ff ffin towards realization of^{the debtdue.}

¶45

loA.Lo6/2026).

¶46

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

¶47

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶48

of receipt of order.

¶49

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1* day of Aptil, 2026)

¶52

sdl-

¶53

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶54

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

:2"t%
01rpnm
'3f,tffii,"

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sri. Challa Raghupathi Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sri. Challa Raghupathi Rao

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

Union Bank of India versus vasantha baltha

Satti Gangi Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Ms Pyramid Infra Services versus Karur Vysya Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S. Isha Waste Recylers

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Kambhampati Jayasree

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Industries