Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. M. Harendra Kumar

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/186/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a personal loan sum of Rs. 22,35,175/-, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application ex-parte as the defendant remained absent, holding the defendant liable to pay the dues with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay sum of Rs. 22,35,775/- with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

State Bank of India versus Mr. M. Harendra Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL,²⁰²⁶

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM.,^{L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 186 OF 2026

¶4

State Bank of India., Secunderabad Branch, Patny Near Secunderabad HPO, Hydera bad Telangana - 500003. Rep. by its Authorised Officer.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. M. Harendra Kumar, S/o. Gena^RaY Aqed about 30 Years, Occ: Khalasi/Helper Carriage Workshop, SCR, Lallaguda R/o. H. No.12-5-85, Vijayapuri Colony South Lallaguda, Secunderabad,^Hyderabad Telangana - 500017.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

O/o. Electrical Department, Carriage^Workshop SCR, Lallaguda, Secunderabad,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶10

. Defend a nt

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant :^{Mr. Ajgal Ravi Babu}

¶12

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶13

:: qLQ-LL ::

¶14

1, The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.22,35,175/- towards Personal^{Loan A/c.No.42483686369 from} the defendant with future^interest @11.5590^{p.a. with monthly rests} from the date of application till the date of^{reallsation along with} costs.

¶15

OA.No.1E6/2026

¶16

¶17

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte^on 24.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Kuna Ravi, Assistant^{Manager as AW-} 1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to^{Ex. A.07.}

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appllcant Bank and^perusedthe material^placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.186/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.22,35,775/- towards Personal Loan A/c. No.42483686369 with future interest @11.55% p.a. simple, from thg.Cate of application till the date of "*i.t*

¶25

realization; (/VA

¶26

oA.No.186/2026

¶27

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^{proceed against} the person and properties of the defendant^for realization of its dues;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶29

The Applicant Bank is directed to file^{CostMemo within 2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order^{to the partiesconcerned.} (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrccted, signed and^{pronouncedby mein the} open court on this the 27rh^day ofApril,2026)

¶32

PRESIDiNG OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mr. M. Harendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. M. Harendra Kumar

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

srikarampullaiah versus Canara Bank

Ms Hsc Construction and Others versus Union Bank of India

Nalam Narasimha Rao versus Icici Bank Limited

Indian Bank versus Mr. Papagari Subhash Chandra

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Faheemullah Khan

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.