Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narayana Mounika Goutham

DRT26 Sept 2023OA/422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues. It held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount with future interest and costs, and authorized the bank to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 23,26,159.29 with future simple interest at 9.25% p.a.; bank authorized to realize dues from hypothecated vehicle and respondents' properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 422 OF 2022

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., l_gvlng^{its officeat # 6-3-LtO9t} Up/3O2, 3'' Floor, Jewel^pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Narayana Mounika Goutham, w/o. Narayana Devi Shankar, Agedt 47 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.3-1-13,^paida Bazar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District-50S172.

¶8

l4r. Narayana Devi Shankar,
S/o./ Ramjilal Narayana
Aged: 53 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o. H. No.3-1-13, paida Bazar,
Peddapalli, Karimnagar District-505172.

¶9

... Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy Defenda nts ;Exparte :: O R D E R ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.23,26,159.29ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @ 18yo p.a. from the date of Ary'3

¶12

oA.NO.422l2022

¶13

application till the date of realisation along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶14

Summons served on D1, whereas summons of D2 served through paper publication. They were set exparte on 20.LO.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek^p.S., Legal Associate, as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through htr' as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.13.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicleT

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.13 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.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.4ZZ|ZO22 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of vA;:n^-

¶22

oA.NO.422/2022

¶23

Rs. 23,26,159.29ps with future interest @ 9.25olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

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 entiUed to proceed against the same realise its debt;

¶25

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

¶26

iii) 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 copv of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the.t"no, .ori".t"a. and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26s day of r"p,"ru"r, ,dr.jined

¶30

rM,n" (MIVTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICE{

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narayana Mounika Goutham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narayana Mounika Goutham

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