Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.G.Jagadeeswar Reddy

DRT30 Oct 2023OA/49/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for recovery of a debt from two defendants. Held defendants jointly and severally liable for the principal amount with interest and permitted the bank to realize dues from hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted included payment of Rs. 34,75,282.84 with interest, left to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties, and award of costs.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3oth DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 49 OF 2022

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Having its Branch Office at # 6-3-1109/ r/P/3O2, 3ro Floor, Jewel^pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hydera bad- 500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶4

.....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. G. lagadeeswar Reddy S/o. G. Ram Reddy,

¶7

Aged: 54 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. MIG 986,^phase-I, BHEL SerilingampaIy, Ranga Reddy District-500074.

¶8

Also at:

¶9

G Jagadeeswar Reddy, C/o. H. No.343, Krishi Nagar, lvladina guda, 14 iya pu r, Hyderabad- 500019.

¶10

Mr. E. Ashok Vardhar Reddy S/o. Ramchandra Reddy, Agedi 44 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H. No. 6-tO3/77, Gul N,tohar^park, IOC Petrol Pump, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy Dist.-500019. ... Defendants

¶11

oA.NO.4912022

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

: Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy

Defendants

: Exparte

:: qLLLB::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.34,75 ,282.84ps from the^{defendantsjointly and} severally with future interest @ 18o/o^p.a. from 15.12.2021^till the date of realisation along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶18

Summons served on D1 & 2 through^{paper publication.They} were set exparte on ll.Oa.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

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

¶20

Ld, Counsel for the Applicant Bank stated that orders may be passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

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

¶23

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 joinHy and severally liable zx,"n

¶24

¶25

oa.No,49l2O22

¶26

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

¶27

In the result, the present Originat Application No.4g/2O22 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.34,75,282.84ps with future interest @ 9.25olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

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;

¶30

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

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is entiHed for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (oictated to the steno, (o ected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3Oh day ofOctober,2023) .

¶35

H-"' ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.G.Jagadeeswar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.G.Jagadeeswar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lucy Sebastian versus PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Maa fly Ash Bricks Industries versus Punjab National Bank

Shail Bala Chaudhary and Shailwala Chaudhari versus Canara Bank

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sachleen Singh

Indian Overseas Bank versus Balvir Singh

Ms Gyankund Trust to Educate and to Serve Kurukshetra versus Ms Religare Finvest Ltd.