Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Varam Vijaya Bharathi

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.32.44 lakh from three respondents. The court rejected the ex-parte defense and held the respondents jointly and severally liable, directing recovery against persons, properties, and mortgage schedule.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs.32,44,742/- with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against persons, properties, and mortgaged schedule; issue of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Varam Vijaya Bharathi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB.^(HONS.), 14.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINALAPPLICATION No: 969 OF 2025

¶5

State Bank of India., SARB Branch, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Varam Vijaya Bharathi Wo.^{Late Mr. JakkamVenkateswara Rao} Aged 55 Years, Occ: House wife, Q No. 17 RARS Staff Quarters, Nunepalli, Nandyal Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh - 518502.

¶9

Mr. Jakkam Chandra Lokesh

¶10

S/o. Late Mr. lakkam Venkateswara Rao Aged 25 Years, Occ: Employee, Q No. 17 RARS Staff Quarters, Nunepalli, Nandyal Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh - 518502.

¶11

Ms. lakkam Thanusree D/o. Late Mr. Jakkam Venkateswara Rao Aged 23 Years, Q No. 17 RARS Staff Quarters, Nunepalli, Nandyal Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh - 518502.

¶12

... Defendants

¶13

: Mr. A M Kiran Kumar Counsel for the Applicant

Defenda nts

:Ex-parte

:: qLLq& ::

The Appllcant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.32,44,L42/- frcm the defendants^jointlyand severally wlth future interest @8.65010^p.a. with monthly^rests N*

¶18

oA.NO.969/202s

¶19

¶20

from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶21

WS not filed by D1 to 3 hence, their right was forfeited and were set exparte on 23.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined Y Mukteswara Rao, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.08.

¶23

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

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.08 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jolntly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Applicatlon No.969/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of /1Y,,"

¶29

oA.NO.969/202S

¶30

¶31

Rs.32,44,742/- with future lnterest @8.25olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of^mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank^is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25rh Day oflune,2026).

¶38

"atuos'l

¶39

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Varam Vijaya Bharathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Varam Vijaya Bharathi

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