Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Durgam Ramesh

DRT2 Feb 2026OA/323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the bank claimed recovery of dues along with interest and penal charges. The Tribunal examined evidence and documents, found the bank's claim established, and allowed the application, directing the defendant to pay the principal, interest, and costs. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.1,58,74,357/- with 77.25% interest and 2% penal interest from 8.11.2023 till realization; entitle to proceed against mortgaged property; issue Recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durgam Ramesh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAy OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.323 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch-II, H.No. 1-B-563/1, 1-st floor, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC "X" Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad- 20.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Durgam Ramesh, s/o D. Venkatadri, Prop: "Ramesh Traders" 3-7 -zOLl 6/ A, Weaker section Colony, Southend parl<, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad - 500 074

¶10

And

¶11

3-71-277/2, Plot no.1:1, Road no.4, Sri Shankar colony, LB nagar, Hyderabad - 500 074. Defenda nt

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant

¶14

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant Sri N. Meher Prasad For defendant Sri Abh'ay Singh Reserved on 2L.0i.2026 2.02.2026 Pronounce o "{/^& 2.42.2026 uploaded in ,fi€lrte s2 rEg 2028: *,

¶15

(oA.No.32312023)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,58,74,357/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Seven only) with interest @17.25o/o p.a with monthly rests apart from 2o/o penal interest from 8.11,2023 till the date of reallzation and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶18

The averments made in the OA in brief are as follows:

¶19

Defendant carrying on trading business in the name of "Ramesh Traders" as sole proprietor availed cash credit of Rs.125 lakhs with a sub limit upto Rs.10 Iakhs vide letter of arrangement on 26.07.2078 on mortgage of schedule mentioned property. The defendant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 26.07.2018. Or,2A.O9.2O2I, the credit facilities of defendant were restructured into regular cash credit of Rs.125 lakhs working capital term loan of Rs.B lakhs and funded interest term of Rs.17 lakhs aggregating to a sum of Rs.150 lakhs. it is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants having availed the said loan

¶20

eep up the rJpayment schedule, as such the account
.aE and the Applicant bank issued notice dated
lfr.ro.ro
rectin g efendant to repay the outstanding amount.
',L
e by Applicant the defendant has not
,rn'p[1"2 ' oF *d E Be?0$',os

¶21

(oA.No.323l2023)

¶22

regularized the account, and did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is Rs.rr5gr74,gst/-

¶23

(nupeed one crore Fifty Eight Lakhs seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty seven onty) with interest @17.25o/o p.a with monthly rests apart from 2o/o penal interest from g. LL.zoz3 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

Defendant filed Written statement and denied the averments made in the OA. The defendant contended that the Applicant bank has not maintained the loan account oroperly. It is averred that the Applicant bank has not registered the security interest over the primary security and collateral security as contemplated in terms of circ.ular DBoD Leg.No.BC.B6/09.08.011/2010-11 dated Aprit 2t, zolt. It is further contended that the Applicant bank grossly violated the rules while classifying the account as NpA and also failed grossly for levying interest @ 77.25o/o which is double the agreed rate of interest @ 8,90%. Hence the OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

During the course of trial on behalf of Applicant Bank, sri J. Rama Rao, chief Manager is examined as AW.1 and through him marked 12 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.25. Defendant sri Durgam Ramesh is examined as DW.1 and file(.exlribits 8,1 to B.3.

¶26

uments placed on record. O2 FEB ?Ms^* ? -,*v

¶27

(OA. No.323/2023)

¶28

5. Heard the arguments.

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶30

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA

¶31

against the defendant ?

¶32

ii) To what relief ?

¶33

Point No.i):

¶34

The specific contention of the applicant bank is that defendant availed CC limit of Rs.1.25 Crores out of which Rs,10 lakhs to be operated by defendants at SBI, Nagole branch carries same rate of interest and as per RBI guidelines and Bank's norms, MCLR has been converted into EBLR at the time of review/ renewal of loan account. As per Exhibit A.7, WCTL of Rs.8.00 lakhs and FITL of Rs.17.00 lakhs were sanctioned and accordingly statements filed in the OA as Exhibits A.14 and A.16. The rate of interest applicable for WCTL and FITL sanctioned on 20.09.2021 is @2.25%o above EBLR and effective rate of interest is @ 8,90%. The specific contention of applicant bank is that the said facilities are different and rate of interest varies for both the accounts separately from time to time.

¶35

¶36

ank AW.1 is examined and he exhibited Even though AW.1 is cross exa m ined ant, nothing is elicited in the cross

¶37

(oA. No.323l2023)

¶38

examination to disprove his testimony. Defendant is examined as DW.1 and exhibited documents B.1 to B.3. The Evidence of AW.1, the documents filed by the applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendant. The evidence of DW.1 is no way helpful to the defendant for establishing his defence. So considering all the circumstances, I hold that the Applicant bank had established its claim against the defendant. so this point is answered accordingly in favour of the Applicant bank and against the defendant.

¶39

Point No.ii)

¶40

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

¶41

The Defencant is liable to pay the Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.1,58,74,357/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred and Flfty Seven only) with interest @77.25o/o p.a from 8.77.2023 till the date of realization.

¶42

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against mortgaged property towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

is also entitled to proceed against the person nd pr dant towards realization of the debt due. 0 2 FrB ?fi28

¶44

(oA. No.32312023)

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of Feb, 2026)

¶50

sd/ -

¶51

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

rrJ,w
DNT-T, HYDEFIAEAD.

State Bank of India v. Sri. Durgam Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Durgam Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ms.Parsi Rohini

M/s Surex Auto works versus Origo Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Muramalla Mahesh

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Alvala Rama