Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

DRT6 Jan 2026OA/182/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against a borrower and his employer. The court held the defendant liable for a dues of Rs. 25,33,054 with interest and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted: Ordered payment of Rs. 25,33,054 with interest; recovery certificate to be issued; costs to be awarded.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY,2026

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.t82 of 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2^nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its authorised officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Sadhu Venkat Reddy, s/o Sri S. Bhuma Reddy, aged about 55 years,

¶9

occ: govt employee, male, 7-3-2OB / L, Shastrinagar,

¶10

Nirmal, Adilabad, TS - 504 106.

¶11

Tribal Welfare Department, A.H.S. Kosagutta, Nirmal, Adilabad, TS - SO4 106.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the parties:

For the Applicant

Defendant No.1

Defendant no.2

Orders

Smt Tarangini pisipati

Sri D. Raghavulu

Exparte

02.07.2026

06.01.2026

Uploaded in websit[ EnJAil^?f2[

06.07.2026

(oA.No.182/202s)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,33,O54l- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Fifty four only) i.e.,

¶28

a) A sum of Rs.12,79,637/_ with interest @ 72.70o/op.a with monthly rests from 29.04.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶29

b) A sum of Rs.12,53,4 l7/_ with interest @ 13.600lo p.a with monthly rests from 29.04.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶30

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 is borrower and guarantor and defendant no.2 is employer of borrower. D It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants avaired the said roan facirities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 30.12.2019, Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued recall notice dated 01.10.2019, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same, The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.25 F3,OS4 .- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Fifty four only) with lnterelfr,,@ t2.7OVit p.a and @ 13.600lo p,a with monthly rests respective[lr irrrn oz,oo.zOl'+_.,,gfu tn" date of rea I ization. Hence rhe !/ *' .^'.. t"L f ii"⁰ 6 ,raru 202fi "jj :'iil r i.: , I :-,' irii .''i I^','.': - ': il''-i '::-.. ,t ",' ,':.,1.:.':,tr ' . , i'^'-'1.-:-'- _ j,-i:,a;.:,, . ,

¶31

(oA.No.182/202s)

¶32

2' The Defendant No.1 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA' It is denied that the defendant defaurted the repayment of roan facirity' It is contended that the defendant was regurar in paying the instarments and crassification of account as NpA was not as per RBI guidelines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶33

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

Heard the arguments.

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶36

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

¶37

ii) To what relief ?

¶38

Point No.i):

¶39

Mr. Sandeep paridala, Manager / AW.l who was examined on behalf of the Appricant crearry deposed about the riabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.12 are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.I examined himself as DW.1 and filed exhibit B.1.

¶40

by the defendants. Even though the 1st as DW.1 and filed exhibit 8,1, his

¶41

to them. The defendant having taken did not follow the RBI guidelines and

¶42

(oA.No.1s2l202s)

¶43

that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Appricant bank makes crear that a, the rerevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction' The defendant very vaguery contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant no'1 is riabre to pay the oA craim. considering a, the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant is not tenabre. Hence the appricant bank is entired to craim the OA amount from defendant. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendant.

¶44

Point No.ii)

¶45

B' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is arowed with costs as u nder:

¶46

The Defendant No.1 is liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum ot Rs.25,33,O54l- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Fifty four only) i.e.,

¶47

A) A sum of Rs.I2,79,637/_ with interest @ 12.70o/o p.a from 28.04.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶48

B)A 2,53,4t7/- with interest @ 13.60% p.a from 71 of realization ; #P 13 0 6 JAil 206 :[ 4

¶49

(oA.No.182 l2o2s)

¶50

9' The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

of receipt of order.

¶54

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶55

L4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

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

¶57

sdl-

¶58

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

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

Ramchandra Reddy Manda versus Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.

Sri Jagadamba Pharma versus State Bank of India

Hari Om Traders versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Putta Sudhakar

Canara Bank versus Podila Ramesh

Bank of India versus Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah