Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Shiva Ramulu Suddala

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/274/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,62,665/- along with future interest and costs against the defendant who remained in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs.21,62,665/- with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued; Proceedings against person and properties directed.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shiva Ramulu Suddala — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB.^(Hons.), lvl.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 274 OF 2026

¶4

State Bank of India., Secunderabad Main Branch, Patny Center Near Secunderabad HPO, Hyderabad Telangana - 500003, Rep, by its Manager.

¶5

,,...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Shiva Ramulu Suddala, S/o. Rajaiah Aged 45 Years, Occ: Asst. Engineer R/o. H.No.25-83/84, Ashok Road Mancherlal Town, Telangana 504208.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

R/o. H.No.13- 1- 169/4/ 1, Snehapuri Colony, Near Saibaba Temple,^Moti Na9ar, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad Telangana - 500018.

¶10

,DeFendant

¶11

Cou nsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ajgal Ravi Babu

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: Q-LD-LL ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA^for the^{recovery of a sum of} Rs.2L,62,665/- towards Xpress Credit^{Loan A/c' No. 42182395281} from the defendant with future interest @13.05o/o^{p.a. with monthly} rests from 09.02.2026 till the dat€^{of realisation alonq with costs'} fAtir^o'' '^{r</sup> ///<sup>i<"'lv''} l-/

¶16

OA.No.274l2025

¶17

¶18

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 19.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Kuna Ravi, Legal I4anager as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.08.

¶20

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

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

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

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled wlth 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.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.Z74/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,62,665/- towards Xpress Credit Loan A/c. No. 42182395281 with future interest @8.65olo p.a. date of

¶26

OA.No,27 412026

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, siEned and pronounced by me in the open court on th s the 22'd day oflune, 2026).

¶33

I t\\t _ _ .t -

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mr. Shiva Ramulu Suddala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Shiva Ramulu Suddala

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.