Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Venkateswaralu Vipparla

DRT6 Apr 2026OA/144/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowed an Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of a personal loan of Rs.24,53,015/- along with interest and costs against the defendant who remained absent.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs.24,53,015/- with contractual interest @ 11.05% p.a.; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Venkateswaralu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6rH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.144 of 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Saidabad branch, H. No. 17-2-586, Madannapet, Saidabad main road, Hyderabad, TS - S00 059. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Venkateswarlu Vipparla, s/o Mr. Venkateswarlu, aged about 54 years,

¶10

occ: Track MNTR-IV, Engineering Department, SCR, R/o H.No.B-44, Veera Venkatapuram, Donakonda, Prakasam District, Ap- 523 30S.

¶11

O/o The Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Engineering dept, South Central Railway, Guntakai Railway Station, Guntakal - 515 801.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the^parties:

¶14

For the Applicant Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu

Defendant

Reserved on

Exparte

30,03.2026

Pronou nced 06.04.2026

Uploaded in

APB )fi26

(oA. No.1aal2026)

ORDER

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.24rS3,O15/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and Fifteen onry) with contractuar nterest @ 11.05o/o p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization;

¶25

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant availed personar roan of Rs.25.oo rakhs on 04.LL.2023 and agreed to repay in 67 monthly installments of Rs.50,167l_. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NpA on 04.04.2025 and issued legal notice dated 09.10.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶26

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 30.03.2026.

¶27

sri A. Aravind, Asst. Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Appricant Bank is entitled for the craim made in the oA against the Defendant as prayed

¶30

lOr I ,"'/" --. _^-. .!.: . . . or.: , '\

¶31

D.e,fendant rqmained igne.t". To substantiate the case of the Applicant SlpnA},})tf,, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and

¶32

(oA.No.taa/20261

¶33

she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.9. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶34

In the result, the present oA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant is riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a totar sum of Rs.24r53 ,ol5l' (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and Fifteen only) with contractual interest @ 11.05% p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is also entiiled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards reatization of the debt due.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶37

11' The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶38

L2. Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶39

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P'A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of April, 2026)

¶41

ffi
' ,itr'
w
o6apnzw%

¶42

sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
3 i' r."i'1.

State Bank of India v. Mr. Venkateswaralu Vipparla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Venkateswaralu Vipparla

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mareedu Ajay

Mr Anwar Basha Shaik and another versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Sandeboina Jayamma and Ors. versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Siddi Vinayak Poly Fibers

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Jalaram Jute and Polymers

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Saikumar Palem