Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.Busa Narsa Reddy

DRT18 Oct 2023OA/9/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a recovery order of the Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad. The applicant bank filed an original application to recover a loan amount. The defendants appeared in absentia. The tribunal held that the evidence clinched the bank's claim and directed the defendants to pay the amount with interest. An issue regarding the liability for the claimed amount and the right to proceed against the hypothec

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 31,34,224.68 with future interest; amounts secured by hypothecated vehicle; recovery certificate issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr.Busa Narsa Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE^{OEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL'IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE l8th DAY OF OCTOBER'2023}

¶2

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWARKOTHE, B Com} '^{L'LB (Hons )' M A}

¶3

PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

Origlnal Application^{No: 09 OF 2022}

¶5

Kotakl! Havinq +a-{t Towers Somaji Rep.b	4ahindra^{Bank Ltd,} its^{office at3toFloor,} togttPlzo2,^JewelPavani ,^{RajbhavanRoad,} guda,^{HYderabad-500082'} Y^{its Authorized Signatory'}	.....Applicant.
Versus
	1.Mr.Busa^NarsaReddy s/o.Ganqaram Aoed:3iYears,^{Occ:SelfEmployed'} R7o.H.t'lo.^{3-117,ThatiPalle,} Jaqityala,^{Karimnagar-505453'}
	2.Mrs.^{Busa Laxmi} w/o.Narsa Reddy, Aoed:32 Years,^{Occ:Self Employed,} R7o.H.No. 3-117,^Thatipalle, Jagityala,^{Karimnagar-505453'}
	3.Mr.Bolishetty^Mallaiah S/o.Pedda^Reddy, Aged: 46Years,^{occ:Self Employed,} R/o. H. No.3-65,.^ThatiPalle, Jagityala,^{Karimnagar-505453.}	...Defendants
	Counselfor the^APPlicant Mr.M.S	rinivasReddy
	Defendants '*o"nt	furt)

¶6

oA.NO.09/2022

¶7

:: ORDER::

¶8

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.3l,34,224.68ps from the defendants joinfly and severally with future interest @ 18o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶9

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set exparte on 29.O8.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶10

The Applicant Bank exan AW_ 1 a nd marked,. ."I;:i:iil Jri ;;,,.1T .:T:T,.: A.10.

¶11

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be

¶12

passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶13

The point that arises for consideration is: _

¶14

Whether the Appticant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA nypotnicatia vehicle?

¶15

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitars in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. Ox*

¶16

oA.NO.09/2022

¶17

In the result, the present Original Application No.09/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶18

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.3L,34,224.68ps with future interest @ 9.25olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

rii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶22

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

¶23

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

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 18th day of October, 2023) .

¶25

fiy'n (nnkifsnwea KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.Busa Narsa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.Busa Narsa Reddy

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

K Haris versus Idbi Bank

K Haris versus Idbi Bank

K Haris versus Idbi Bank

State Bank of India (E-State Bank Ofbikaner and Jaipur)) versus Balaji Store

Bank of Baroda versus Pannalal

Bank of India versus Mrs.Arakala Rani @ Rani Asi Reddy