Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Praful Kundik Navghare

DRT7 Jul 2026OA/545/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India against an employee and the railway zone for recovery of a loan of Rs. 20,54,722 with interest. The defendants remained absent, and the applicant's evidence was accepted.

What did the court decide?

Defendant No.1 to pay Rs. 20,54,722/- with interest; applicant entitled to proceed against person and property of defendant for realization; costs awarded.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praful Kundik Navghare — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 545 OF 2026

¶4

State Bank of India., Anandbagh Branch. H.No.24 - 90 Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad Telangana - 500047. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Praful Kundik Navghare S/o. Kunduk Luxman Navghare Aged about 41^years, Desi-'gnation Dresser/OTA Gr-III, Employee No 24114090084, RLy QTRS No. 1103/3 Near Central RLy Hospital, Hyderabad Telangana - 500017.

¶8

The General Manager South Central Railway Rai Nilayam, Secunderabad-500017.

¶9

. ..... Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Appticant : Mr. C. Sreedhar

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: oRDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.20,54,122/ - towards Loan A/c. No.42681680781 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @14.30olo p.a. with monthly rests from the^ date of application till the date of ,.^ realisation alono with costl/)ry<(\ (-" 01'v^'

OA.No.54sl2026

1. Summons served^{on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte} 03.07.2026^{as called absentand no representation'}

¶19

The Appllcant^Bank examined Saurabh^{Kumar, Chief Manageras} AW-1 and marked 09 documents through^{him as Ex. A.1 to Ex'} A.09.

¶20

Heard the^{Ld. Counselfor the ApplicantBank'Perused the material} placed on record.

¶21

The^point that^{arlses for considerationis:-}

¶22

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled for} the claim made^{in the OA againstthe} Defendants?

¶23

As stated supra,^{the Defendantsremained ex-parte The Evidence} Affidavit coupled^{withthe recitalsin the documents vlz', Exs A l to} A.09 marked on^{behalfof the Applicant Bank clinchesthe claim of} the Applicant^{Bank againstthe Defendants.Hence, I hold that the} Defendants are^{jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to} the Applicant Bank^{with futureinterest and costs'}

¶24

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.545/2026is} allowed as under:^-

¶25

l) The Defendant No.1 is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.20,54,7221- towards^Loan A/c. No.42681680781 with future interest @12.3070 p.a. simple, from the date of aoDlication till the date of reallzation; u1 /Anry--^*&-

¶26

¶27

OA.No.S4S/2026

¶28

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

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. open court on this the :?::,:::j:5:ill;jifllili.ll 07th day of July,2026l.^{uvr,i,, .or"..tual Iu""J",.opronouncedbymein the}

¶33

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

State Bank of India v. Mr. Praful Kundik Navghare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Praful Kundik Navghare

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

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav and Others versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri. Madduri Sreenivas

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri Keshava Chary Venjarapu

State Bank of India versus M/s. Nani Mini Lorry Transport.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty

Pallem Krishna versus State Bank of India