Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Slns Building Material Suppliers

DRT26 Sept 2023OA/21/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of dues, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim against defendants appearing ex-parte, directing payment of the principal sum plus future interest and costs, and approving action against secured and unsecured assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 32,89,216.85 plus 18% p.a. interest and costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued; directed to realize dues from hypothecated asset and defendants' pr

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Slns Building… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26Ih DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER,2023}

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 21 OF 2022

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Havlng its Branch Office al6-3-7709/LlPl3O2, 3'd Floor, Jewel Pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

SLNS Building Material Suppliers Office at Flat No.301, Plot^{No.29& 30,} Golden Homes, Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad-500055. Represented by its Proprietor Mr.lY. Hari Krishna.

¶9

Mr. Mandadi Hari Krishna S/o.Kondaiah, Aged about 35^years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.205, Plot No.1275- 1279, Lotus Anasuya, Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad-500090.

¶10

l4r.B. Madhava Rao, s/o.Vangaiah, Aged about 48^years, Occ: Business, R"/o.Flat No.107. Sagar Residency, Sy.No.148, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad-500037.

MDefendants

oA.2Ll2022

Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

: lvlr.M.Srinivas Reddy

Defendants

:Exparte

:: CLLLEE :;

The Applicant Bank flled^{the present OA for the recovery of a} sum of Rs.32,89,216.85ps from^{the defendantsjointly and} severally with future^interest @^{18o/op.a. with monthlyrests} frcm l5ll2l2o2l till the date of^{realisationalong withcosts,} and in default, for sale^{of OA schedule asset.}

¶20

Summons served on D1 and 2,^{whereas summon servedon D3} through paper^{publication.They were set exparte on} 29.OB.2022 as called^{absent and no representation.}

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined^{Mr.Abhishek, Legal Associateas} AW-1 and marked 09 documents^{through hifi as Ex. A,1 to Ex'} A.9.

¶22

Heard the Ld.^{Counsel for the Applicant Bankand perused the} material Placed^{on record.}

¶23

The^point that^{arisesfor considerationis:-}

¶24

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in^{the OA against} the Defendants and^{OA schedule} asset?

¶25

As stated supra,^{the Defendantsremainedex-parteThe} Evidence Affidavit^{coupled withthe recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to^{A.9 markedon behalfof the Applicant Bank} clinches the claim^{of the ApplicantBankagainst the Defendants'} Hence, I hold^{that the Defendants are jointly andm)yliable}

¶26

//z^tlf/"'

¶27

oA.zt/2022

¶28

to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.2t/2O22 allowed as under: -

¶30

i) ffre Defendants are joinfly and severally

¶31

liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.32,89,216.85ps with future interest 6) 6o7o

¶32

p.a. simple from the date of application till

¶33

the date of realization;

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶39

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected. signed and pro";";.;;;;;; in',n" or"n .orn o, this the 26th day of September, ZbZs) .

¶40

/fu;n*e (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Slns Building Material Suppliers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Slns Building Material Suppliers

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

Union Bank of India versus Sri Debobrata Phukon

Yes Bank versus Rahul Boro

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited versus Abhinandan Jain and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus Late Sh. Avtar Singh

Paramhans Kumar Puri versus Central Bank of India

Ms Maa Vaishno Trading and others versus Bank of Baroda