Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Nasreen Begum

DRT12 Aug 2026OA/359/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte original application for recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad held that the bank's evidence, including an evidence affidavit and adjoined documents, established the defendant's liability to pay the claimed sum with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.24,62,979/- with future interest @11.80% p.a. from the date of application till realization; bank entitled to proceed against person and properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-iI^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 359 OF 2026

¶5

State Bank of India., Musarambagh Branch, H. No.16- ll-577/D/223 Shalivahana Nagar, Musarambag h Hyderabad - 500036. Rep by its Authorised Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Nasreen Begum, W/o. Mohammad lamsheed, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Employee H.No. 10-9-34/8, IG Puram, Near Railway Track, Fathe Nagar, Hyderabad - 500018.

¶9

......Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. R.^Aruna

Defenda nts

:Ex-parte

:: SLLLE-L ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery^{of a sum of} Rs.24,62,979 / - from the defendant with future interest @11.80vo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant through^{paper publication and} was set ex-parte on 11.08.2026 as called absent and^no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined T Lalith Ratnakar,^{Legal Manager as} AW-1 and marked 05 documents through him as^{Ex. A.1} to^{Ex. A.5.}

¶17

OA.No.3s9/2026

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the materia I 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?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the ctaim 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.359/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs.24,62,979/- with future interest @11.80o/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of rea lization;

¶24

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

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶26

The Applicant Bank ls directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. fu1**

¶27

OA.No.359/2025

¶28

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and^pronounced by^{mein the} open court on this the 12th day of August, 2026).

¶31

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Nasreen Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Nasreen Begum

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

Satish Kumar Shivaratri versus Axis Finance Limited

Sri Massa Srinivas versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Ms Sabiha Agencies

Hdfc Bank versus Vayuputhra Crane Services

Bsb industries and others versus Uco Bank

Shaik Abdul Mahboob Basha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and Others