Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. a.Sriramula

DRT15 Nov 2023OA/218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by a bank for recovery of dues. The tribunal held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount, future interest, and costs, with the claim secured by hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 59,52,075.16 with interest and costs; claim secured by hypothecated vehicles; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus a.Sriramula — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL'I]AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE^{15th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2023}

¶2

PRESENT: sH.^{MMESHWAR KoTHE,B Com, L'LB (Hons )' M A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

Original Application^{No: 218 OF 2022}

¶4

Kotak Mahindra^{Bank Ltd.,} Havino its branch^officeat # 64:L7}gtrtPt3o2,^{3'd Floor,} Jewel Pavani^Towers, Rajbhavan^{Road, Somajiguda,} Hyderabad-500082. Rep. by its^{Authorized Signatory.}

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. A Sriramulu,^{S/o. AkulaNarsah,} Aged: 54 Years,^{Occ: Busines,} R/o. H. No. 2-74,^{Islampur, Toopran} Manal, Medak^{District- 502335.}

¶8

Also at:

¶9

Mr. A Sriramulu, H. No. 8-36, Hanuman^Temple, Toopran, Medak^{District-502335.}

¶10

Mrs. Akula Rajamani Wo.^{Sriramulu, Aged: 50 Years,} Occ: Housewife,^{R/o.H. No.2-74,} IslamPur, TooPran^lVandal, Medak District-502335.

¶11

Mr. Biyyani ThiruPathi^Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Aged:^{56 Years,} Occ: Business,^{R/o' H. No 11-96,} Near Watertank, TooPran, Medak Dist.-502335. .,. Defendants tu*

¶12

oA.]{o.218/2022

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Defenda nts

¶15

Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶16

Exparte

¶17

:: ORDER::

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 59,52,075.16ps from the defendants joinUy and severally with future interest @ 18o/o p.a. compounded from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicles.

¶19

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set exparte on 02.O9.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

3, The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek p.S., Legal Associate, as AW-1 and marked 15 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.15.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶23

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

¶24

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled ,l,/ith the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.15 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants.

ft-^ttl

oA.NO.218/2022

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.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.218/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 59,52,075.16ps with future interest @ 9.25o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

q Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (oictated_to the steno, corrected, sjgned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15"'Day of November,2O23).

¶37

K,.*

¶38

PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. a.Sriramula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. a.Sriramula

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

Meghalaya Rural Bank versus Shri Christerfils Shira Cajee

Canara Bank versus M/S Kamla Enterprises and Others

Ms Munshi Ram Roop Lal versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Suryakant R Biradar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Avatar B Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Udupi Park