Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr Kopunuri Parashuramulu

DRT27 Jul 2023OA/247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for the recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 30,15,810.49 with interest and costs from the respondents, whom it held jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 30,15,810.49 with future interest; recovery certificate issued to applicant bank; applicant bank entitled to costs.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE27th DAYOFJULY, 2023}

¶2

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

¶3

Original^{ApplicationNo: 247 oF 2023}

¶4

M/s Kotak Mahindra^BankLimited, r.l"-a-:-ffOSlflp:022,^{Raj BhavanRoad,} Somajiguda,^HYderabad, Telangana^{State-500082'} Represented^bYitsManager CumAuthorized^Signatory'	......Applicant
VERSUS
1,Mr. Kopunuri^{Parashuramulu,} S/o.Kopunuri^Mallaiah, Aged32 Years, R"/o.H.No.24-134,^SilarpallY, Kalwakurthy,^{NearVivekanandaPark,} Mahabubnagar,^{Telangana-509324}
2.Mrs. Kopunurl^Shanthi, Wo.^{KoPunuri Parashuramulu,} Aged28Years, R/o.H. No.^{24-134,Silarpally,} ' Katwakurthy,^{NearVivekanandaPark,} Mahabubnagar,^{Telangana-509324.}	.......Defendants
Counselfor theAPPlicant CounselfortheDefendant Mr. B. Rav Ex-Parte	indraReddy 0Y*

¶5

OANo.247l2O23

¶6

ORDER

¶7

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 30,15,g10.49ps as on 27.t2.2022 under Construction Equipment Loan Account No. CE_1OgB1g9, from the Defendants joinfly and severally with future interest @ 24o/o p.a. including penar interest with monthry rests from the date of 28.L2.2022 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶8

Summons served on D1 to 2 returned with endorsement refused hence deemed to be served. The defendants were set exparte on 15.06.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶9

The Applicant Bank examined Kakarla Balaji Rao, Manager as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A. 10.

¶10

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

¶11

5, The point that arises for consideration is:

¶12

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA mentioned . Hypothecated asset?

¶13

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank

¶14

\6'"t

¶15

OANo.247l2OZl

¶16

clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶17

In the result, the present Original Application No.247 /2023 is allowed as under: -

¶18

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 30,15,810.49ps with future interest @ L2o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶22

B. 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 27th day ofJuly, 2023) .

¶25

/lY*

¶26

(M64TSHWAR KoTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr Kopunuri Parashuramulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr Kopunuri Parashuramulu

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

Idbi Bank versus M/s Smartway Group

Union Bank of India versus Umesh

Idbi Bank versus Sushanta Kumar

State Bank of India versus Buta Singh

Ms Govindraj Traders through Its Prop Shri Vijay So Vinayak Keshattiwar versus State Bank of India

Ms Dhanshri Lal Hira Hari Patanjali Jila Vitarak Kendra and Ors. versus State Bank of India