Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ramulu

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/621/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application for recovery of dues totaling Rs.24,69,879 from the Defendant, who remained ex-parte. The Tribunal held the claim was supported by evidence and marked documents, directing the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.24,69,879 with future interest; Applicant Bank entitled to costs and recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Ramulu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-iI AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), tvl.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 621 OF 2026

¶3

State Bank of India.. I I iB_g?n;u-^{HiIs - 2oe4o, Jyothiprime} 6-3-3-257/7/r & 2, Behind G V K Ma Erramanzil Colony, Road No.1, Banjara Hr s, Hyderabad _ 500082. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶4

.....Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Panugothu Ramulu, S/o. Devula Age 55 Years, Occ: Govt. Service H.No.2- 14, Venkambavi Thanda Narayanapura Mandalam, yadadri Bhuvangiri - 508253.

¶7

...... Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. p. Sanjay

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: oRDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.24,69,879/_ i.e., a sum of Rs.15,75,349/_ towards A/c.No.43744879178 with interest @12.90olo p.a. and a sum of Rs.8,94,470/- towards A/c. No.4 3339050742 with interest @12.60010 p.a. from the defendant with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶13

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement Refused, hence deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 14.08.2026 as ca ed absent and no rcpresentatioorB-rt$

¶14

oA.No.521/2025

¶15

¶16

The^{Applicant Bank examined K S VinayKumar'} as Legal Ex.^Manager A.1^{to Ex'as} Aw-1 and^{marked10 documentsthroughhim} A.10.

¶17

HeardtheLd.counselfortheApplicantBankandperusedthe material Placed^{on record'}

¶18

¶19

The^{point that arises for consideration is:-}

¶20

whether^{the Applicant Bankis entitled for} the claim^{made in the OA againstthe} Defendant?

¶21

As stated^{supra, the Defendant remained ex-parteThe Evidence} Affidavit^{coupled withthe recitalsin the documents viz ' Exs' A 1 to} A.10^{marked on behalfof the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of} the Applicant^{Bankagainst the Defendant Hence' I hold that the} DefendantisliabletopaytheoAclaimtotheAPplicantBankwith future^{interest and costs'}

¶22

In the result,^{the present Original ApplicationNo 62U2026is} allowed^{as under:-}

¶23

i) The^{Defendantis liableto pay to the ApPlicant Bank a} sum of Rs.24,69,819/-^{i'e', a sum of Rs 15'75'349/-} towards^{A/c.No.43L4487gf78and asum of} Rs.A,g4,47O/-^{towardsA/c'No/3339050742iwith} future interest @12.600/o^{p a' simple'from the dateof} application till^{the date of realization;}

¶24

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled^{to proceed against} the Person and properties of^{the defendantfor} realization of^{its dues;}

¶25

OA.No.521/2026

¶26

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

9 Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

10 Communicate a copy of this order to the partles concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25rh day of August, 2026).

¶31

Koos

¶32

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Ramulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ramulu

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Umiya Timber Trading.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Haneesh Babu Vuyyuru

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sree Venkateswara Beauty Services.

Mohammed Faheemuddin versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Indusind Bank versus Sunand

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Kankara Somasekhara Reddy