Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Muramalla Mahesh

DRT2 Feb 2026OA/215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of loan dues against defendants who liable to repay principal and interest, rejecting their plea of collusion, and directed issuance of recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 54,20,585/- with interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties for realization; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri Muramalla Mahesh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAy OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.215 ol 2O24

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch Znd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex, (Commuter Amenity Centre) Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana state. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Muramalla Mahesh, s/o Sri Radha Krishna, major, male, R/o 1-8, 4, Sattamma Veedhi, Manepalle, East Godavari - ::3 249.

¶10

And also at:

¶11

Plot no.BB, flat no.202, friend: Colony, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶12

Smt Tejasvi Gujjula, w/o Sri M. Mahesh, female, major, R/o 2-9/L, S. Uddulam, Suddulam village, Dichpalle mandal, Nizamabad dist - 503 164

¶13

And also at:

¶14

Plot no.BB, flat no.202, friends Colony, ,rO"ruOmPuppalagud fb*"g'\ : 02rEn2026 :

¶15

Defendants

¶16

loA.No.21,s/2024],

¶17

CounselfortheParties:
FortheApplicant	SriP.V.Satyanarayana
Defendants	SriS.Kishore
Orders reservedon	L9.OL.2026
Pronouncedon	02.02.2026
Uploadedin websiteon	02.o2.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of RS.54,2O,S8S/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Five only) (R3.49A3,229/- + Rs.4,77,3561) with interest @ 9.10% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 and 2 availed houslng loan of rs.78.75 lakhs along with Home loan insurance of Rs.4,51,106/- and total limit of Rs.83,26,106/- on 03.08.2021. The defendants executed necessary security loan documents in favour of bank vide letter of arrangement dated 03.08.2021. The defendants also executed

¶21

gage and created equitable mortgage of schedule
It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the
iio s 2 id Ioan facilities and failed to keep up the
i B ttB2o26 i
t"":l t
-aYkY
"{,-1,;;;r?w

¶22

(oA.No.zts/202a1

¶23

repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued notices. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 09.05.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of

¶24

Rs.54r2O,5851- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Five only) (Rs.49,43,229/- + Rs-4,77,3561-) with interest @ 9.Loo/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realization. Hence the oA.

¶25

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted by the defendants that the said loan was obtained by the builder who is instrumental in securing the loan and obtained the signaiures of defendants in collusion with the Bank and got released the loan amount without the consent of defendants. It is further contended that the Applicant bank deliberately suppressed the facts and was also involved in collusion with the builder in disbursing the loan sanctioned in the name of defendants. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶26

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

the
J'*i 0 2 FtB *
ii,I rr1 '1126 rrr
t\s- I
\ "4

¶28

(oA.No.27512024)

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶30

i) whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in oA against the defendants ?

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

Mr. Dhanunjaya Panda, Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.B are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and filed Ex.B.1 to B.13.

¶34

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 1st
defendant examined himself as DW.1 and filed Exhibits B.1 to 8.13,
his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendants having taken
the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and
that the present oA was barred i--,y lir-nitation, failed to place any
substantial proof to that eftect, Moreover, a perusal of the documents
exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant
documents are executed by the defendants in the normal ccurse of
transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that pat'ticulars
made in the OA are not correct. But .rs per the statement of accounts,
the defendants are liable to pay the oA claim. considering all the
of opinion that the defense taken by the
.$ - o*tb ''q
pndantsffi not Hence the applicant bank is entitled to
r? * 0 2 FEB 2020 *
"sli i
r.',:,.l.I'r. ii. '!. '''-.,ir,:. i".;.... ''. '.1'1,- .", :" ' . i ' .,.<f;Y'.ufri?r,/ i, i2!'" ,-"{*iT,
" ;' i t :ill ",ry{

¶35

(oA. No.21sl2024)

¶36

claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶39

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.54,2O,585/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Five only) (Rs.49,43,229/- + Rs.4,77,356/-) with interest @ 9.10o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶40

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed agairlst the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt d ue.

¶41

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

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

¶43

cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶44

Jrt

¶45

(oA.No.21.s/2024)

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2"d day of Feb'2026)

¶49

sd/ -

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

6q-
,tu &b
; az rrn ?ozr I

¶52

i\w"
Ass{Reitxrar
^?--I, HYDEftAEAD.

State Bank of India v. Sri Muramalla Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Muramalla Mahesh

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

State Bank of India versus Ms.Parsi Rohini

M/s Surex Auto works versus Origo Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durgam Ramesh

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Alvala Rama