Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Essampalli Raju

DRT30 Aug 2023OA/979/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for recovery of debts worth Rs. 24.67 lakhs from two individual defendants. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable based on the evidence affidavit. The application was allowed with a direction to secure the debt via hypothecated vehicle and issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 24,67,404.36 with future interest; OA claim secured by hypothecated vehicle; recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3oth DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 979 OF 2022

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Having office at 3'd Floor, Jewel Pawani Torflers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Rep by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Essampalli Raju, S/o. E. Mallaya, Aged: 32^years, H. No. 5-3-1-C, Annapurna Colony, Boduppal, Uppal, Hyderabad-S0OOO7.

¶9

Mr. Kotha Venkatesham Goud, S/o. Laxmanna, Aged: 55^years, H.No. 6-19 Indira Nagar Colony, Ghatkesari, Ranga Reddy Dist., Hyderabad-500092.

¶10

,.. Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan Defendants : Exparte

¶12

:: ILLLEB ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery from the defendants joinHy and severally a sum of Rs. Mn

¶14

¶15

oa.No.979l2O22

¶16

24,67,4O4.36ps with future interest from date of application till the date of realisation along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicte.

¶17

Summons sent to D1 returned with endorsement Refused, hence deemed to be served. Whereas summons served on D2, They were set exparte on 10.04.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek p.S., Legal Associate, as AW-l and marked 7 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.7 .

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the

¶20

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 Defendank 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.7 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 to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest andcosts. Qffi*

¶24

oa.No.979l2022

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.g7gl2\22 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 24,67,4o4.36ps with future interest @ 11olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

it) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

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 3Od dayofAugust, 2023).

¶33

5ffitw (MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Essampalli Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Essampalli Raju

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus R.K Trading Co.

Union Bank of India versus Vidhya Telsang Alias Vidhya Pradeepkumar Telsang

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Telsang Motors

Shree Deepak So Bhaskarrao Mudliyar versus Shri Anand Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Gundepanga Bixam

Bengal Speech and Hearing Pvt. Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited