Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar

DRT21 Jul 2026OA/297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Money Recovery Application filed by State Bank of India against legal heirs of a deceased borrower. The court held that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount with interest within the limits of the estate devolved.

What did the court decide?

Applicant bank allowed to recover Rs.36,70,127/- plus future interest from respondents jointly and severally, limited to the estate of the deceased borrower.

State Bank of India versus Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.297 of 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, RTC Cross Roads, Opp Sandhya Theatre, Hyderabad, Telangana. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

't Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar, s/o Late Karumanchi Nirmala, aged about 27 years, male, R/o Plot no.7Ol7l, Flat no.201, Sai Balaji Residency, Balaji enclave, Road no.2, Jaipuri colony, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶9

Ms. Bokkinala Satya Sree, D/o Late Karumanchi Nirmala, Aged about 29 years, female, R/o Plot no.70/71, Flat no.201, Sai Balaji Residency, Balaji enclave,Balaji Residency, Balaji enclave,Residency, Balaji enclave, Road no.2, Jaipuri colony,no.2, Jaipuri colony,colony, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500 036.500 036.036.

¶10

Sai Balaji Residency, Balaji enclave,Balaji Residency, Balaji enclave,Residency, Balaji enclave,
Road no.2, Jaipuri colony,no.2, Jaipuri colony,colony,
Bandlaguda, Nagole,
Hyderabad - 500 036.500 036.036. fffi%
3. The Principal , t)- I z 1 d I r rUL ul ZUt 2126 :ii
Vivekananda Government Degree cottfgp "
,&. . ;
^ Jll
BrS
#670/A, H.No.1-9, Adikmet road, \ia,{,
vidva nasar' Adikmet''::::1':_ "i\isr,#"w

¶11

The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Higher Education Department, Government oF Telangana,

¶12

(OA. No.29712025 )

¶13

Office at 3'd floor, Prof. Jayashankar Vidya Bhavan, Ek Minar^MasjidRoad, Sri Balaji enclae, Ghoshamahal, Nampally, Hyderabad, TS - 500^001.

¶14

Defenda nts

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

¶16

FortheApplicant	SriAjgalRaviBabu
Defendants	Sri K.Rajasekhar
Orders reservedon	L6.07.2026
Pronouncedon	2t.07.2026
Uploaded inwebsiteon	2r.07.2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA against Defendants No.1 & 2} for recovery ot a total sum of Rs.36,7O,127l-^{(Rupees Thirty Six}

¶19

Lakhs Seventy Thousand^{One Hundredand Twenty Seven only)}

¶20

i.€.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.23,73,49t1-^{vide Loan A/c.No.41405444920 with} future interest @ 10.55o/o^{p.a from date of filing of OA till the date} of realization ;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.12,96,636/- vide^{loan A/c. No.41997302762 with} future inte date of application till the date + ffi

¶23

of reali q -)

¶24

ns fieitne2al".Jllemn the ioolication, the^{ApplicantBank} states of defendants no.1 &2isa personal loan of Rs.25.00

¶25

(oA.N0.2971202s)

¶26

lakhs and executed personal loan agreement dated 05.LL.2022. Subsequently Smt Nirmala Karumanchi, availed credit facility of Rs.12.00 lakhs on 13.06.2023. Later Smt Nirmala Karumanchi (borrower) died on 22.04.2024 and defendants No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs oF the deceased. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the deceased borrower availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on 29.07.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated L9.06.2025, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.36,7O,L27l- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs

¶27

Seventy Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Seven only) with future interest @ 10.55% p.a and @ 11.50o/o p.a respectively from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶28

The Defendants filed written statement and submitted that they were solely impleaded as legal heirs of deceased borrower Late Smt Karumanchi Nirmala (mother_ t no.2) who availed personal loan and subsequently .2024. It is contended f#

¶29

that defendants did !^sign AS guarantor and no privity of contract p lica nt bank. Hence ",?,JoJl&ffi,",.,1

¶30

prayed for dismissal

¶31

(oA. No.29712025)

¶32

I have perused the documents^placed on^record.

¶33

Heard the arguments.

¶34

Mrs. M. Sarala, Manager/^{AW.1 is examined on behalf of the Applicant.} Exhibits A.1 to A.14 are marked through^{AW.1. DefendantNo.2} examined herself as DW.1 and^Ex.B1 to^{B.3 are exhibitedby her.}

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration^are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has^{proved its claim as made in OA} against the defendants^?

¶36

ii) To what relief ?

¶37

Point No.i):

¶38

On behalf of the applicant bank, Smt^{M. Sarala,Chief Manager who is} examined as AW.l deposed clearly about^{the liabilityof the defendants} and also about the execution of^{various documents filed bythe} applicant bank. AW.1 is not cross^{examinedby the defendants.So} the evidence of AW.1 is not challenged by the defendants.^Even though defendant no.2 examined^herself as^{DW.1, her evidence is no} way hel for establishing the contentions^raised by the by the defendant. Even

¶39

though herself as DW.1 and filed

¶40

(oA. No.2971202s)

¶41

Exhibit 8.1 to 8.3, her evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that eFfect. 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 course of transaction. Late Karumanchi Nirmala/ borrower is the mother of defendants no.1 & 2 and after her demise, defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded as legal heirs. The DW.1 filed the death certificate which is marked as Exhibit B.2. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entifled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 & 2.

¶42

Point No.ii)

¶43

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

¶44

The Defendants No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant um of of Rs.36,7O,127 l- (Rupees Thirty Six nd One Hundred and Twenty Seven

¶45

(oA.No.297l202s)

¶46

a) A sum of Rs.23,73,49t/vide Loan A/c.No.41405444920^with future interest @^10.55o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till^the date of realization ;

¶47

b) A sum of Rs.12,96,636/vide loan A/c. No.419973Q2762^with future interest @ 11.50o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶48

The Applicant^{bank is entitled to proceedonly to the extent of estate} devolved upon the^{defendants No.1 & 2 from the deceasedborrower} Late Karumanchi^Nirmala.

¶49

The Applicant^{Bank is entitledto the costs of the OA'}

¶50

t2. The Applicant^{shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date} of receipt of order.

¶51

Issue Recovery^{certificateaccordingly.}

¶52

t4. Communicate a^{copy of the order to the parties concerned'}

¶53

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by^{her, corrected,signedand pronouncedby me in the opencourton} this the 21" day of JulY,²⁰²⁶⁾

¶54

sdt_

¶55

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kovuri Nagesh Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited

Ms Maha Bharati Foot Wear India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indusind Bank Ltd.

pratap jadpod versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles

Karur Vysya Bank versus Challa Raghupathi Reddy

Canara Bank versus M/S.Sreelatha Textiles