Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Suneetha Jidagam

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/196/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 2,77,414 against a defendant who remained absent. The court held the bank entitled to recovery with future interest and costs, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 2,77,414 with future interest and costs; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Suneetha Jidagam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 28TII DAY OF APRIL,²⁰²⁶

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MI4ESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 196^{OF 2026}

¶4

State Bank of India., Padmarao Nagar Branch,^{Postbag No.2} Secunderabad - 500023. Rep. by its Asst. Manager.

¶5

..'..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Suneetha lidagam,^{C/o. J. Vigneswara} Prasad, Aged about^{45 Years,Female} Occ: Private Employee,^{R/o. D No.30-18-14} Inavolu Vari Street,^{Seetharampuram} Vijayawada, Andhra^Pradesh -^520004.

¶8

...... Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the^APPlicant : Mr. Ajgal Ravi^Babu

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: qLqEL ::

The Applicant Bank filed^{the presentOA for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.?2,77,414/- towards^{Xpress Credit Elite Loan A/cNo'} 42560331714 from the^{defendantwith future interest@10 90Vo} p.a. with monthly rests from 09.12.2025^{till the dateof reallsation} along with costs.

¶14

Summon served on^{sole defendantand was set ex-parteon} 27.04.2026 as called^{absent and no representatig4^lt*} /-j.u"''"^L

¶15

oA.No.196/2026

¶16

The Applica nt Bank examined SD Vamsi Krishna, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.08.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.08 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.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.196/2026 ts allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendant is tiable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.22,77,414l- towards Xpress Credit Elite Loan A/c. No. 425603377t4 with future interest @10.90olo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against

¶24

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues; Offi*-\

¶25

oA.No.196/2026

¶26

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

The Applicant Bank is dlrected to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day otApril,2026).

¶30

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Suneetha Jidagam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Suneetha Jidagam

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

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

Karre Radha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Naresh Banothu

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Laxminarayana Narasimulu Palakurki

Union Bank of India versus Amma Petroleum Company.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Manopadu Swamy