Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Ketharju Poornima

DRT24 Aug 2023OA/421/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 30.97 lakh plus interest and costs from two defendants. The defendants remained ex-parte, and the court held their claim based on the marked evidence affidavits and loan documents.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 30,97,993.04 plus future interest; allowed recovery from hypothecated vehicles and properties; directed filing of cost memo.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Ketharju Poornima — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), N4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 421 OF 2022

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Branch Office at # 6-3- 7tO9 t Ll p / 302, 3'o Floor, lewel^pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Rep. by its N4anager-Legal.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Ketharju^poornima, W/o. Uma Maheswar Aged: 42^years, Occ: Housewife R/o. Plot No. 37,^padmanagar Colony, Near IDL Colony, Balangar, Quthubutlapur, Hyderabad-500037.

¶8

Mr. Yanamandra Nagaeswara Rao S/o. Suryanarayana. Agedi 72 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 49-293/7, padma Nagar Cotony, Chintal, Hyderabad-500037.

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant ; Ivlr. M. Srinivas Reddy Defenda nts : Exparte 0y*"

oa.No .42112022

:: ILLLEB ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 30,97,993.04ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @ 18olo p.a. with monthly rests from till the date of realisation along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicles.

¶15

Summons served on D1, whereas summons of D2 served through paper publication. They were set exparte on 20.7O.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek P.S, Legal Associate, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶17

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

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

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

¶20

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 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. N.on

¶21

oA.NO.42U2022

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.42L/2O22 allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Defendants are join y and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs, 30,97,993.04ps i.e. Rs, 13,52,203.37ps and Rs. L7,45,789.67ps under Loan accounts LCV-826576 and 985964 respectively with future interest @ 11.760lo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

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 24th day of August, 2023) .

¶30

S(""' ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Ketharju Poornima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Ketharju Poornima

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

Jayalakshmi versus Bank of Baroda

Uco Bank versus M/S Asian Security and Allied Service and Ors.

Anjana Devi Goel and Anr. versus Uco Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Suraj Pharmaceiticals

State Bank of India versus M/S Ajit Kumar

State Bank of India versus Satish Kumar Jaiswal