Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kasipogula Suresh

DRT7 Apr 2026OA/849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of term loan dues. The court held the defendant liable to pay the principal sum, future interest, and costs, and authorized the bank to proceed against hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 45,14,804/- with future interest and costs; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties for realization.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kasipogula Suresh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 849 OF 2025

¶5

State Bank of India., Kadiri Main Branch, Kadiri, Sri Satya Sai District. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Kasipogula Suresh S/o. Late Mr.Roshappa, Aged 36 Years Occ: Business, R/o. Dinnamedapalli Street, Gowkanapalle Village Sri Sathyasai District, AP - 515581

¶9

..Defendant

¶10

: Mr. A. M. Kiran Kumar Counsel for the Applicant

Defendant

: Ex-parte

:: $-[f!-

The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.45,14,804/-^{towardsTermLoan from the defendant} with future interest @11.40olo^{p.a. with monthlyrests from the} date of application till^{the date of realization along with costs} and in default^{for sale of hypothecated vehicle'}

¶16

WS not filed by defendant^{hence,right was forfeited and was} set ex-parte on^{10.03.2026 as called absentandno} representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank^{examinedVSBG Krishna, Manager, as AW-1} and marked 05^{documentsthrough him qs Ex'A'1to Ex'A'05'} o'w**

¶18

oA.NO.849/2025

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.05 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA ctaim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Originat Application No.849/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.45,14,g04l_ towards Term Loan with future interest @10.05o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the OA ctaim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entiued to proceed aqainst the same to reatise its debt;Ofu;

¶26

oA.NO.849/202s

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^{properties of}

¶28

defendants for realizatiOn of its dues;

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the^costs'

¶30

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost^{Memo within2 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.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by^{me in the open court on} this the 07' Day oi APRIL,^2026). (fu*'*

¶33

(MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kasipogula Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kasipogula Suresh

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms. Neela Saron Blessy

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sureswara Beverages.

Canara Bank versus Sri. Mudireddy Ranjith Reddy

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Falcon Facilities India Private Limited.

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Suryadevara Kranthi Kumar

Smt Onamala Maheswari versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)