Allowed

State Bank of India v. Venkatram

DRT2 Jul 2026OA/339/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal order allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery. The defendant remained ex-parte. The Court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed amount with future interest and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 27,26,961/- with future interest @ 11.15% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Venkatram — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 339 OF 2026

¶5

State Bank of India, Vanasthalipuram Branch, Phase I, Sy. No. 201, Vanasthalipuram Commercial Complex, Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500661. Represented by its Asst. Manager

¶6

......Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Maloth Venkatram, S/o. Ramjya Maloth, Aged about 40 years, Male, Occ: Government Employee, R/o H. No. 11-47, Chinna Kistapuram, Maddi Vancha, Garla Mandal, Mahabubabad District, Telangana - 507210

¶9

Defen da nt

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ajgal Ravi Babu

¶11

Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-parte

¶12

:: ORDER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 21,26,961/- as on 28.01.2026 from the sole defendant with future interest @ 11.15% p.ir^t],n monthly ,/ .<,{'r"

¶14

¶15

OA.No.339/2026

¶16

rests from 28.01.2026 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶17

Summons served on Sole Defendant through paper publication and was set exparte on 01.07.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. V. Anvesh, Assistant Manager, as AW-1 and marked 8 documents throuqh him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8.

¶19

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.8 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is tiable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.339/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a Rs. 27,26,961/- with future ffi"

¶25

OA.No.339/2026

¶26

interest @ 11.15olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant for realization of its dues;

¶28

iii ) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

9 Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

10 Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd Day ofJuly, 2026).

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Venkatram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Venkatram

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Laxmi Agencies

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Fruitbros

Mustafa Gold And Jewelers versus Shriram Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Shaik Abudl Sattar.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Lubna Enterprises.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Wings On Wheels.