Allowed

State Bank of India v. National Security Servives

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/384/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a debt secured by mortgage against four defendants who remained in ex-parte. The court held the claim was clinched by evidence and ordered recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 57,66,815/- with future interest; recovery certificate issued against mortgaged property and person.

State Bank of India versus National Security Servives — Pension and Retirement Benefits | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 384 OF 2022

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch - 2, RTC X Roads, Chikkadapalli, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

......Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. National Security Services A Proprietary Concern Rep by its Proprietrix Smt. Y. Sumithra Wo^{Sri. Yerukula Govind} Plot No. 3, Balapur Cross Roads Balapur, Hyderabad, Telangana-500005

¶8

Smt. Yerukula Sumithra, Wo^{Sri.Yerukula Govind, tvo H. No.4-111} Pragathi Colony, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District, Tela nga na^- 500007

¶9

Sri. Yerukula Govind, S/o Sri. Yerukula Prabhkar R/o H. No.4-111, Pragathi Colony, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District. Telangana-500097

¶10

Sri. Yerukula Narendra S/o Sri. Yerukula Prabhakar R/o H. No.4-111, Pragathi Colony,^Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana- 500097

...Defendants

Oy*o

oa,No,38412022

Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

Counsel for the Defendants

¶16

: lYr. Hari^prasad podila

¶17

:Ex-parte

¶18

:: ORDER ::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 57,66,At5/- from defendants 1 to 4 join y and severally with future interest @ 14.g50/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of OA mortgaged property.

¶20

Summon served on Defendants 1to 4 and were set exparte on 09.03.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Ms. M. Sarala, Ivlanager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through them as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶24

Whether the Appticant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA mortgaged property?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bar4,against the Defendants. / / //yfr\n-/, ,/'.<<.nv ^t^.' (,t'

¶26

oA.NO.384/2022

¶27

Hence, I hold that the^{Defendantsare liable to pay the OA claim} to the Applicant^{Bank with futureinterest and costs.}

¶28

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.384/2022is} allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) The Defendants 1 to 4^{are jointly and} severally liable to^{pay to the ApplicantBank a} sum Rs. 57,66,8L51-^{with future interest@} 8.15olo p.a. simple^{from the date of} application till^{the date of realization;}

¶30

ii) the OA claim^{is securedby way of mortgage} of^property as^{described in the schedule} annexed to the^{OA and the applicant bank is} entitled to^{proceedagainstthe same to} realise its debt;

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶33

The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file CostMemowithin 2 weeks} from the date^{of receipt of this Order'}

¶34

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶35

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno,^{corrected,signedand pronounced by me2);theopen courton} ihis the^{zz"d Day of} June,2026). //WU*t^

¶36

(RAi'rfsHWhR KOrHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. National Security Servives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. National Security Servives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Yempalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Perumandla Kishan versus M S Ikf Home Finance

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hygiene Retail India Private Ltd.