Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs.Mamatha Bitla

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/257/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, heard an original application by State Bank of India for recovery of dues. The defendant, Mrs. Mamatha Bitla, remained ex parte. Relying on the examination of the manager and marked documents, the Tribunal held the defendant liable and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; respondent liable to pay Rs. 22,10,053/- with future interest at 11.80% p.a. and costs; recovery certificate to be issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE^{22Nd DAY OF ]UNE, 2026}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M'A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO: 257 OF 2026}

¶4

STATE BANK OF^INDIA, Secunderabad Main^Branch, Patny Center, Near Secunderabad^HPO Hyderabad, Telangana -^03. Rep. by its Manager

¶5

. . . . . . .Applica nt

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Mamatha Bitla D/o. Mr. Rajaiah^Nanam, W/o. Bharath Kumar^Bitla Aged 34 Years, Gender:^Female, Oic: Quality^{Analyst, Dr. Reddy'sLaboratories Ltd',} R/o. 1-4-9, Behind^{MethodistChurch,} Budvel Village,^{Rajendranagar Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District,^Telangana -^{500 030}

¶8

Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the^APP|icant

¶10

: Mr. Ajgal Ravi^Babu

¶11

Counsel for the^Defendant

: Ex-parte

fi$v.*

oA.NO.257/2026

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 22,10,053/_ as on 17.01.2026 from the sole defendant with future interest @ 11.g0% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶18

Summon served on Sole Defendant through paper publication

¶19

and was set exparte on 79.06.2026 as called absent and no

¶20

representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Kuna Ravi, Manager, as AW_1

¶22

and marked 6 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6,

¶23

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the material

¶24

placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is: _

¶26

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

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to 4.6 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.

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.257/2026 is allowed as under: _ fut*

¶29

I i

¶30

oA.NO.2s712026

¶31

i) The Sole Defendant is^{liable to pay to the} Applicant Bank a^{Rs. 22,t0,053/-with future} interest @ 11.80o/o^{p.a. simple from the date} of application till^{the date of realization;}

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶36

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, coriected,^{signedand pronounced by me in the opencourt on} this the 22"d^{DayofJune, 2026lr.}

¶37

PRESIDING^OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mrs.Mamatha Bitla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs.Mamatha Bitla

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

Mr Yempalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Perumandla Kishan versus M S Ikf Home Finance

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hygiene Retail India Private Ltd.