Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Vangaru Hashushma

DRT13 May 2026OA/338/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed a recovery application filed by a State Bank branch against a borrower who remained absent. The court held the bank entitled to the claimed loan amount plus future interest and costs based on examined documents and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to pay Rs. 20,87,461/- with future interest at 11.80% p.a. and costs; directed issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: sH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 338 OF 2026

¶4

State Bank of India., Vanasthalipuram Branch, phase i, Sy.No.201 Vanasthalipuram Commercial Complex Ranga Reddy, Tetangana - 500661. Rep. by its Asst. I\4anager.

¶5

.....Applica nt

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Vangaru Hashushma, D/o. Upender Vangara, Aged about 35 years, Female Occ: Accounts Clerk, R/o. euarter No.82 Railway Quarters, Sithaphalmandi Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana-500061.

¶8

Also at:O/o. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager (Sr. DFM/SC), SCR,3.d Ftoor, Sanchalan Bhavan, Ranga Reddy, Telangana-500071.

¶9

...... Defenda nt

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant l4r. Ajgal Ravi Babu Defendants Ex-parte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.20,87,46L/- towards Xpress Credit Etite Loan A/c. No. 41280567121 from the defendant with future interest @11.80yo p.a. with monthly rests from 28.01.2026 till the date of realisation arong with costs. OWr""

¶13

OA.No.338/2026

¶14

¶15

Summon sent to^{sole defendantreturnedwithendorsement} unclaimed hence,^{deemedto be servedand was set ex-parte on} 13.05.2026 as^{called absentand no representation'}

¶16

The Applicant Bank^{examined V Anvesh,Assistantl4anageras AW-1} and marked 08 documents^{through himas Ex' A'1 to Ex A 08'}

¶17

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

¶18

The^point that^{arisesfor consideration is:-}

¶19

Whether the Applicant^{Bankis entitled for} the claim made in the^{OA against the} Defendant?

¶20

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remained ex-parte.The Evidence} Affidavit coupled^{withthe recitals in the documentsviz., Exs' A'1 to} A.08 marked on behalf of^{the Applicant Bank clinchesthe 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.

¶21

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.338/2026is} allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.20,87,461/- towards^{XpressCredit Elite Loan} A/c. No. 4f280567121 with future interest @11.80o/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of rea lization; av,*\

¶23

oA.No.338/2026

¶24

ii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed aga inst

¶25

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶26

iii) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certincate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, correctea, iigned anJproiounceo ty me in the open coun on this the 13,h day ot May, 2026).

¶30

7aflWr.*.,^.,.1, ///'<\e'tr'"

¶31

( RAME'SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Vangaru Hashushma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Vangaru Hashushma

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 India versus M/s. Bhole Shankar Furniture.

Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Vikasika Enterprises Private Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Gantala Shankar

Sri D Vara Prasad versus Bank of India

Mr N Lakshmi Raman Mohan and Another versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited