Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/302/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Presidency decided an unopposed recovery application filed by State Bank of India against a sole defendant who remained ex parte. The court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed sum with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing OA; Defendant liable to pay Rs.32,85,224 with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgage; Bank entitled to proceed against person and properties; Costs awarded.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I] AT^HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF ]UNE,²⁰²⁶

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 302^{OF 2026}

¶4

State Bank of India., Tadimarri Branch, Sree Sathya Sai District.^(Earlier Anathapur District). Rep' bv its Authorized signatory'

¶5

""^Appricant'

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma Wo.^{LateVenkataswamy,Aged 65 Years} Occ: Agriculturist,^{R/o. Surepalli Village} Putlur Ma nda l, Putlur, AnathaPur Andhra Pradesh - 515445'

¶8

.. Defendant

¶9

: Mr. A M Kiran Kumar Counsel for the Applicant

Defendant

: Ex-Parte

:: g-Lq-L&^::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.32,85,2241-^{from the defendantwith futureinterest} @13.55o/o^{p.a. with monthlyrestsfrom the dateof application} till the date of^{realization along with costs and in defaultfor} sale of OA schedule ProPertY.

¶14

Summon served on^{sole defendantthrough paper publicatlon} and was set ex-parte^{on 18.06.2026 as called absent and no} tA.t -'. -\

¶15

representation. ' . -lr,-'')

¶16

oA.NO.302/2026

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined B Ganesh, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 14 documents through him as Ex.A.1to Ex.A.14.

¶18

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

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule property?

¶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.14 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.30212026 is allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.32,85,224/- with future interest @10.55o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed^against the same to rearise its aeot; fr$i1'is.

¶25

oA.NO.302/2026

¶26

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

¶27

iv) the appllcant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶28

B. The Appllcant Bank is directed to^{file Cost Memo within 2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶30

Communicate a^{copy of this order to the partiesconcerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{siSnedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 2sth Day ofJune,^2026).

¶31

OWo** (RIIMESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.

Bank of Baroda versus varikuppala prasad

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

Canara Bank versus M/S.Farmdean Hospitality LLP

Hdfc Bank versus Nadida Ipathi Reddy

M/S. Union Bank of India versus Sri M. Anil Kumar