Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Chinimilli Madhavi Latha

DRT6 Jul 2026OA/274/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a defaulted personal loan of Rs. 20.51 lakhs plus future interest against the Respondent who failed to comply with loan terms.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,51,363/- plus future interest at 11.75% p.a. and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Chinimilli Madhavi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O6th DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI cOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 274 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Parishrama Bhavan Branch, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mrs. Chinimilli Madhavi Latha D/o C. Murali Mohan Rao

¶9

Aged 36 years

¶10

Occ: Asst. Consultant, Emp id 368249 O/o TCS, Synergy Park, lndian lmmunoligicals colony, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032.

¶11

Also at -

¶12

R/o Flat No.114, Solitaire Abode Apartments, Khailash Nagar, Chandanagar

¶13

Defendant

¶14

lOA.^No.27412026l

¶15

Counsel for the^parties:

¶16

For The Applicant K. Narayana Rao For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 01.07 .2026 Pronounced on 06.07.2026 Upload in website on 07.07.2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 20,51 ,353/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three Only) with future rate of interest @11.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant availed Personal loan under Xpress Credit Elite Scheme of Rs.23,63,6004 repayable in72 equated monthly installments of Rs.45,9031 p.m with interest and executed Personal Loan Agreement dated 08.06.2023 in the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the classified the account as NPA on 06.08.2025 and

¶20

¶21

loA.^{No.27a/2026]|}

¶22

issued Legal Notice dated 13.10.2025 to the defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 01 .07.2026.

¶24

Sri. D. Sreekar, Assistant Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents. which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.6.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶27

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.6. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence-the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in . ---1-\ re interest and costs.

¶28

¶29

lOA.^No.274/20261

¶30

ln the result, the^present OA is allowed^{with costs,as under:}

¶31

The Defendant is liable to^pay to the^{ApplicantBanka total sum} of Rs. 20,51,363/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs^{Fifty One} Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three Only)^{with future rate} of interest @11.75o/" p.a from the date of this application^till the date of realization.

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^{proceed against} the^person and properties of Defendant towards^{realizationof the debt} due.

¶33

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

¶34

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks^{from the} date of receipt of order.

¶35

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06rh day ofJul 2026)

¶38

fif-"ffi '\N

¶39

J oEJUL,n:r .:

¶40

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

RUE COPY
!.1aff*
aessffia{*h
nn i.i, trytinAEAD.

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Chinimilli Madhavi Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Chinimilli Madhavi Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Murakonda Narasimha Rao

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Gmk Enterprises

Sv Agencies Usathish Usunitha versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Janmanjaya Majhi

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bollikonda Renu Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Cheekatla Vinesh Kiran