Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Putta Sudhakar

DRT6 Jan 2026OA/174/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under the DRT Act, the respondent challenged the appellant bank's claim on grounds of blank signatures and interest rates. The Presiding Officer found the debt established and dismissed openended, and ordered recovery with interest. The applicant bank. The bank's State Bank of India. The court allowed the OA. The applicant bank. The court allowed the OA. The applicant ba

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 24,63,860/- with future interest @ 14.050% p.a.; permission to proceed against persons and property.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Putta Sudhakar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 6rH DAy OF JANUARY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.174 of 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-II, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Putta Sudhakar, S/o Mr. P. Thirupathaiah, aged 53 years, Occ: superintendent, Rlo 4-71/1, Habsiguda, street no.8, Hyderabad -500 007.

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Mr. Putta Sudhakar, S/o P.Thirupathaiah, aged 53 years, Occ: Superintendent, C/o Pendyala Baba Prasad, H.No. 1- 105/3 6/ 5, Sai Sanjeeva Nagar, Nagaram, Medchal - Malkajgiri Dist - 500 083.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

F Oo r t nh e Ap plrca plica n tt :t1. Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar Defendant .. r.i 1..r^l' ", Sri M. Anand Kumar r.! Orders reserved on - - 02.0t.2026 "" B 5 Jll; ?r:i ' "r: Pronounced oh^,, :,,. , 06.01.2026 Uploaded in websitqoe,.^.,,:' :1: ;: 06.01.2026 : .''. : ' :' .: .. _! j i:-_ii'^{. .:;} ,.i.: ;r'

¶15

(oA.No.17al202s)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.24,63,g6O/_ (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and sixty onry) with future interest @ 14.050/o p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication till the date of realization.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant avaired personar roan with a rimit of Rs.24.80 lakhs and executed personal loan agreement on 01.11.2023. The defendant agreed to repay in 72 monthly instalrments from 02'tL'2023' It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendant avaired the said roan facirities and faired to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classifled as NpA on 30.L2.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant has not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 02.01.2025, but the defendant did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is of Rs.24,63,86O/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty only) with future interest @ 14'050/o p'a with-monthry rests from date of apprication ti, the date

¶19

oA.

¶20

(oA.No.1741202s)

¶21

2' The Defendant fired written statement and denied the averments made in OA, It is submitted that the Applicant bank obtained signatures of defendant on blank documents and later filled up the same. It is further contended that the Applicant bank claimed huge amount towards interest and the interest craimed ins not as per the RBI guidelines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶22

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶23

Heard the arguments.

¶24

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶25

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ?

¶26

ii) To what relief ?

¶27

Point No.i):

¶28

Mr. M. Ravinder, Manager / AW.I who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability oF the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.1O are marked through AW.1. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and filed Ex.B.1.

¶29

by the defendant, Even though the as DW.1 and flled Exhibit B,1, his to him. The defendant having taken the 3

¶30

(oA.No.1741202s)

¶31

plea that the appricant bank did not foilow the RBI guiderines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes crear that ail the rerevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normar course of transaction. The defendant very vaguely contended that particulars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant is liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant is not tenable. Hence the appricant bank is entiHed to craim the oA amount from defendant. Therefore, the oA craim deserves to be aflowed against the defendant,

¶32

Point No.ii)

¶33

B' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶34

The Defendant is liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.24,63,86o/' (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty only) with future interest @ 74.05o/o p.a from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization ;

¶35

The Ap g"k is also entifled to proceed against the person and ;:'h, towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

11' i to the costs of the OA. .ln"^{trg':lqtfisnk}

¶37

¶38

(oA.No.1741202s)

¶39

The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

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

sdl-

(c. GoPtcHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

,d.

tr"w

State Bank of India v. Mr. Putta Sudhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Putta Sudhakar

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramchandra Reddy Manda versus Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.

Sri Jagadamba Pharma versus State Bank of India

Hari Om Traders versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Podila Ramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

Bank of India versus Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah