Allowed

State Bank of India v. Maa Bagala Transport.

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/60/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of loan dues totaling over Rs. 5.51 crore from the borrower proprietors. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for principal, future interest, and costs, and permitted the sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay total sum of Rs. 5,51,81,690/- with future interest; authorized sale of hypothecated assets; awarded costs.

State Bank of India versus Maa Bagala Transport. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 60 OF 2026

¶5

State Bank of Ind ia., Branch Office at SME Kurnool Branch 2"d Floor, Krishna Complex Main Road Gayatri Estate, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518002. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

lYaa Bagala Transport., A Proprietorship Concern Rep by its proprietor Koditham Vara Lakshmi, Wo. Koditham Srinivasulu Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Business Female, Add: 87-1388-N, NDK Road NDL Check Post, Sheshadri Nagar Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh - 518002.

¶9

Koditham Vara Lakshmi W/o. Koditham Srinivasulu Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Business Female, Add: 87-1388-N, NDK Road NDL Check Post, Sheshadri Nagar Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh - 518002.

¶10

.. . Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Tarangini Pisipati

Defendants

: Ex-parte

::^qLLE& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.5,51,8L,690/- i.e., a sum of Rs.39,18,349/- towards Loan A/c.No.43065007183 with interA;t ''"'Apol.lio/o @11.05o/o p.a.^Pa' an dd a

¶16

oA.NO.60/2026

¶17

¶18

sum of Rs.5,12,63,3411- towards Loan A/c. No.43658867635 with interest @11.20olo p.a. from the defendants^jointly and severally inclusive penal interest with monthly rests from 22.07.?0?6 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶19

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 22.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined Shaik Fazal Ahmed, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 12 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.12.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶24

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.12 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶25

7, In the result, the^present original Application No.60/2026 is ailowed as under: -

¶26

oA.NO.50/2026

¶27

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,51,81,6901- i.€., a sum of Rs.39,18,349/- towards Loan A/c. No. 43065007183 and a sum of Rs.S,12,63,34L/towards Loan A/c.No.43658867635; with future interest @9.15olo^p.a. simple from^the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way^of hypothecation of assets described in^the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against} the same to realise its debt;

¶29

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

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

B, The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo^{within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order,

¶32

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to^{the parties concerned.} ihisthezs'hDayof (Dictated to the steno, corrected, rune,2025). signed and^pronounced by me in the^{open court on}

¶34

firyOr*,

¶35

1*rfi'rsHwnR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Maa Bagala Transport.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Maa Bagala Transport.

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.

Bank of Baroda versus varikuppala prasad

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

Canara Bank versus M/S.Farmdean Hospitality LLP

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma

Hdfc Bank versus Nadida Ipathi Reddy