Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kuchibatla Venkatesh Sharma

DRT22 Sept 2026OA/584/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India’s application for recovery against a defendant who failed to repay a personal loan according to the agreed repayment schedule. The bank proved the loan and liability through the Chief Manager’s evidence and exhibited documents. The defendant failed to place substantial proof in support of his defences, including limitation and alleged non-compliance with RBI guidelines. The defendant was directed to pay the outstanding amount with future interest, and a recovery certificate was ordered.

What did the court decide?

The defendant was directed to pay the applicant bank Rs.23,82,864/- with future interest at 11.80% per annum from the date of application until realization, with costs. A recovery certificate was ordered to be issued.

State Bank of India versus Kuchibatla Venkatesh Sharma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21St DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.584 ot 2025

¶5

(Amended as oer memo dated 16.O9.2026)

¶6

Between:

¶7

State Bank of India, Parishrama Bhavan Branch, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Mr. K. Venkatesh Sharma, S/o K.S. Raj Kumar, aged 35 years, Occ: Senior Software Engineer, Emp.ID8137389 O/o Virtusa Consulting Services Private Ltd Sy.No. 1 15, Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally mandal, Hyderabad- 500 032

¶11

and also

¶12

At flat no.101, Sai Parimala Nivas, Kakatiya Hills, Opp. Canara bank, Pragathi Nagar, Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District - 500 090.

¶13

Defendant

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant Sri K. Narayana Rao Defendant Sri G. Narendranath O rd ers .09.2026 Pronounced on 1.O9.2026 Uploaded in r.09.2026 [Ar*,n-

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA against Defendant for recovery} of a total sum of Rs.23,82,864/-^{(RupeesTwenty ThreeLakhs} Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty^{Four only) with} subsequent interest @ 11.80o/o^p.a with^{monthly rests from date of} application till the date of^realization.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the^{ApplicantBank} states that the defendant availed^{personal loan of Rs.25.00 lakhsand} executed personal loan agreement dated t9.07.2023.^{The defendant} agreed to repay the loan amount in 72 equal^{monthly installments2} Rs.48,616/-p.m. It is submitted by the Applicant bank^{that the} Defendants availed the said loan facilities and^failed to^{keep up the} repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as^NPA and issued legal notice dated 2L.03.2025. Inspite of demands^madeby Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and^the Applicant bank issued notices, but the defendants did not^come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is of Rs.23,82,lE641-^(Rupees Twenty Three^Lakhs

¶19

Eight Hundred and Sixty Four only) with B0o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of ffit"^{difealization.Hence the oA'}

¶20

The Defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that the Application is barred by limitation. It is further contended that the Applicant bank obtained signatures on blank^printed forms. It is further submitted that the applicant bank charged excessive rate of interest and also charged penal interest and hidden charges. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶21

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶22

Heard the arguments.

¶23

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶24

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ?

¶25

ii) To what relief ?

¶26

Point No.i):

¶27

Mr. M. Arjun, Chief Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.6 are marked through AW.1. Defendant examined himself as DW.1, having not filed any documents.

¶28

<t-^"'=ffi ,.fii^{-</sup> #W.1^{w{i$ not} by the defendants. Even though the}

¶29

i . i^* deffln{a$fipeffiineti-tpimself d(i as DW.1 and not filed any documents, to him. The defendant having taken

¶30

the plea that the applicant bank did^{not follow the RBI guidelines and} that the^present OA was barred by limitation,^{failed to place any} substantial^proof to that effect.^{Moreover, a perusal of the documents} exhibited by the Applicant bank^makes clear^{that all the relevant} documents are executed by the defendant^{in the normalcourseof} transaction. The defendants very vaguely^{contendedthat particulars} made in the OA are not correct. But as^per the statement^{of accounts,} the defendant is liable to^pay the OA claim.^{Consideringall the} circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by^the defendant is not tenable. Hence the appllcant bank^{is entitled to claim} the OA amount from defendant. Therefore, the OA^{claim deserves to} be allowed against the defendant.

¶31

Point No.ii)

¶32

In the result, the^present Original application^is allowed^{with costsas} u nder:

¶33

The Defendant is liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,82,864/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred a4 Four only) with future interest@ 11.80o/o O" frffi application till the date o r f rea lization rization ; /i* ii* T;iit+) + jils ^ ere tG i ;* f';"' _o$ 9. nst the person and rhe Appricant bank is ritit*1,!,1:.1.,: ,:d9/" properties of defendant towaids rdaliza{tryW the debt due. '..,'.'

¶34

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶35

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

¶36

L2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21't day of Sept, 2026)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

1 stP A2[ :

TRUE,GOPY-4,
UYa*#
i{rst
DRr.l. HYt)!:anFAn

State Bank of India v. Kuchibatla Venkatesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kuchibatla Venkatesh Sharma

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy versus Hdfc Bank

Mr Lingareddy Ganga versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

Gulam Mohammedkhan versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited