Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. G. Ravi Kumar @ Gaddam Ravi

DRT10 Feb 2026OA/186/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Syndicated Bank recovered funds from a widow who assumed liability for her deceased wife's loans. The court rejected defenses regarding RBI guidelines and limitation, held evidence on record sufficient to prove liability, and allowed the OA for recovery of principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay Rs. 25,28,741.70 with interest; recovery certificate to be issued; cost award granted.

State Bank of India versus Mr. G. Ravi Kumar @ Gaddam Ravi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.186 ot 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-II, RTC cross road, Opp Sandhya theatre, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. G. Ravi Kumar @ Gaddam Ravi, Aged major, male, R/o flat no.201, H. No.3-4-63l t9 /298/20t, Sindhuja Brindavanam Apartments, Street no.1, Sri Ramanapuram Church colony road, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, TS - 500 039.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu

Defendant

Sri G.L. Prasada Rao

Orders reserved on

03.02.2026

L0.02.2026

t0.02.2026

(oA.No.186 of 202s)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,87,4L7l- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen only) with further interest @ 12.40olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization,

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the Smt Lakshmi Prasanna^pogulakonda, wife of defendant herein was a Secondary grade teacher in Department of School education, Govt of Telangana availed Xpress Credit loan of Rs.B,00 lakhs and accepted the terms and conditions and agreed to repay the loan in 72 equated monthly installments @ Rs.15,808 /-p.m @l2.4Oo/o p.a interest, Subsequently Smt Lakshmi Prasanna availed another Xpress Credit loan of Rs.14.00 lakhs on 18.11.2023 and agreed to repay in 72 EMI9 @ Rs.26,327/- p.m @ 10.55% p.a interest. Subsequently Smt Lakshmi Prasanna Pogulakonda (borrower) died on 11.L2.2023 and the defendant is the husband of deceased borrower who is legal heir and holding the custody of the estate of his deceased wife. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendant availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account,was classified as NPA on 19.04.2024. Inspite of demands made !1 Applicant the defendant has not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated

¶25

(OA.No.185 of 2025)

¶26

30.12.2024, but the defendant did not come^forward to^repaythe same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is^of Rs.25,87,417l- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen only) with further interest @ t2.40o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA,

¶27

The Defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted that the Applicant bank obtained signatures of defendant's wife without following the terms^an conditions. It is further contended that the Applicant bank^claimed huge amount towards interest and the interest claimed^{ins not as per} the RBI guidelines. Hence^prayed for dismissal of OA,

¶28

I have^perused the documents^placed on^record.

¶29

Heard the arguments,

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration^are:

¶31

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has^proved its claim as^{madein OA} against the defendant ?

¶32

ii) To what relief ?

¶33

(OA.No.186 of 2025)

¶34

Mrs. M. Sarala, Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.9 are marked through AW.1. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶35

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendant. Even though the defendant examined himself as DW.1 did not file any documents, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect, Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal 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 applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendant. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendant.

¶36

Point No.ii)

¶37

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as

under: ., ._.

(OA.No.186 of 2025)

The Defendant is liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.25t87,4l7l- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen only) with further interest @ 12.40o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶42

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due. However the Applicant bank is entitled only to the extent of estate devolved upon him from the deceased borrower Late Lakshmi Prasanna Pogulakonda.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of Feb'2026)

¶48

.,.,.
"'i...
,, :i,.,
/4a

¶49

sdl-

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRES!DING OFFICER '051 Asst

State Bank of India v. Mr. G. Ravi Kumar @ Gaddam Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. G. Ravi Kumar @ Gaddam Ravi

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Avula Jayasurya

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shaik Noor Ahamed

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gollapudi Ravi Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Boya Srinivasulu

Canara Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Devi Textiles

Indian Bank versus M/S Gayathri Electricals