Allowed

State Bank of India v. Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

DRT18 Jun 2026OA/224/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues from the sole defendant, who remained ex-parte, holding the defendant liable to pay the claimed sum with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 23,01,636/ with future interest @ 11.55 p.a. from date of application till realization; application and costs allowed; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF ]UNE,²⁰²⁶

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 224 OF 2026

¶4

State Bank of India, Chintalakunta Branch, Plot No.1, 2,7 &8, Abhyudaynagar, Chintalakunta, Ranga Reddy. Rep. by its Authorized Officer/Manager

¶5

.......Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das S/o Mohan Das, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Employee, Plot No.40, Kondapur, .....Defendant Shilpa Valley, Hyderabad - 500 084

¶8

: Smt. R. Aruna Counsel for the Applicant

¶9

Counsel for the Defendant :^Ex-parte

¶10

:: qLLL& ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recovery a total} sum of Rs. 23,01,636/- from the sole^{defendantwith future} interest @ 11.550/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date^of application till the date of^{realizationalong with cosB/AVk} rt LJ'l ---Lt'V^{I -}

¶12

oa.No.22412026

¶13

Summon served on Sole Defendant through paper publication

¶14

and was set exparte on 76.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Mrs. K. Sudha Pa rima la, Branch

¶16

Manager, as AW-1 and marked 5 documents through him as

¶17

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5.

¶18

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the material placed on record_

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is: _

¶20

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

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.5 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.

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.224/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a Rs. 23,0!,636/_ with future interest @ 11.55o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization:

¶24

rf-\

¶25

¶26

0A.NO.2Z4l2026

¶27

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

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to^{file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order^{to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open^{court on} this the 18th Day of June,^2026).

¶32

r)wo*A (RKMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Hint Transformers Pvt. Ltd.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mahameed Kaleem

Hdfc Bank versus Anil Kumar

M/S. Bank of Baroda versus M/s Cure Diagnostics

State Bank of India versus Koliki Ranga Swamy

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Palla Madhava Reddy