Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Bheem Rao Suru Kudmetha

DRT7 Apr 2026OA/56/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No. 56 of 2026 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the bank sought recovery of a personal loan defaulting amounting to Rs. 23,78,810.00. The defendant was absent. The Tribunal held that the bank established its claim through documentation and rules allowed the OA.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,78,810.00 with interest @12.05% p.a. from 10.12.2025, costs, issuance of Recovery Certificate, and direction to proceed against other persons.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bheem Rao Suru Kudmetha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTth DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT: SR! GUMMADT cOptGHAND, PRESID|NG OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 56 OF 2026

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of lndia, Vidyanagar Branch, H. no. 1 -8-70214, Vidyanagar Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO 044 Represented by its Depug Manager Applicant

¶5

VERSUS Mr. Bheem Rao Suru Kudmetha, S/o. Suru, Aged 55 years, Male, Occ. Govt. Employee, Revenue Department, R/o. h. No. 7 -2-65t7 4F, Bagutwada, Beside Shishu Mandir School, Nirmal, Nirmal district, Telangana - 504 106 Defendant Counsel for the parties :

¶6

For The Applicant Ravi Babu For the Defendant Reserved on .04.2026 Pronounced on Upload

(oA. No. s612026)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,7g,g10.00 ps. (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten Only) with contractual rate of interest @12.OSo/o p.a with monthly rests from 10.12.2025 till the date of realization.

¶11

¶12

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant availed personal Loan under Xpress Credit Limit of Rs.22,93,000/- repayabte in 12 equated monthly installments of Rs.44,889/- with interest @12.OSo/o p.a with monthly rests and executed personal Loan Agreement dated 13.11.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 13.03.2025 and issued Legal Notice dated 21.10.2025 tothe defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶13

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 01.04.2026.

¶14

¶15

the Applicant Bank relevant documents,

¶16

(oA. No. s512025)

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶18

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶19

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.8. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶20

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under^:

¶21

The Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total^sum of Rs.23,78,810.00 Ps.^(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten Only) with contractual rate of interest @12.05o/o^p.a from 10.12.2025 till the^{date of} realization.

¶22

The Applicant to proceed against the^person and towards realization of the debt due. i, 0 7 APR M26

¶23

(oA. No. sil2026l

¶24

That Applicant Bank is entitled to^{the costs of the OA.}

¶25

The Applicant shall file a cost^{memo within two weeks from the} date of receipt of order.

¶26

lssue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶27

Communicate a copy of^{the order to the parties concerned.}

¶28

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by^{her, corrected, signedand pronouncedby me in the open court on} this the 07th day of^APr,2026)

¶29

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

Asst Rcgftiar --:..I. '{YDaRABAD

¶32

State Bank of India v. Mr. Bheem Rao Suru Kudmetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Bheem Rao Suru Kudmetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seshadri Agro Industries versus Central Bank of India

Kancharla Swarupa versus Shriram Finance

State Bank of India versus Mr. Venkateswaralu Vipparla

Ujwal Agarwal versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Salasar Ispat Udyog