Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Mallu Ramchandra Reddy

DRT11 Dec 2024OA/160/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.160/2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of Rs.29,68,398.93 plus interest from four defendants. The bank proved the loan existence and default via unchallenged evidence. Defendants denied execution but failed to cross-examine witnesses or file evidence, resulting in personalized sanctions including foreclosure rights.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs.29,68,398.93 plus interest at 12.25% p.a. from 01.01.2023. Bank authorized to sell hypothecated/mortgaged properties for realization and proceed against other properties of

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Mallu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.16O ot 2O23

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mahabubnagar branch, 12- 10-273, Netaji circle, New town, Mahabubnagar Telangana - 509 001. Represented by its authorised officer

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Mallu Ramachandra Reddy, s/o Sri Masi Reddy, aged major, occ: business, plot no.240, OifrinO Rural^police Station, Mahabubnagar _ 509 001.

¶9

Mrs.^prameela Devi, w/o Sri Ramachandra Reddy, aged major, occ: business, plot no.240, behind Rural^police Station, Mahabubnagar - 509 001.

¶10

Mr. M. Venkatesh, s/o Sri Ramachandra Reddy, aged major, occ: business, plot no.240, behind Rural^police Station, Mahabubnagar - 509 001.

¶11

Sri D. Linga Reddy, S/o Sri Narayana Reddy, Aged major, occ:business, Flat n0.304, Sri Sai Laxmi Apartments, besides LIC Office, Mahabubnagr _ 01.

¶12

; '- _). 11oEclnzt \tI
'. i1"- ..) /\ !s? l
. ***#

¶13

Defendants

¶14

(OA. No.160/2023 )

¶15

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri R. Rajendra Prasad For the Defendants No.3& 4 Expa rte Defendant No.1 & 2 Sri ShaikKhaza Peer

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,58,398.93ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Eight and paise Ninety Three only) with further interest @ 12.25olo p.a with monthly rests from 01.01.2023 till the date of realizationand in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 availed Agricultural term loan facility of Rs.12.00 lakhs on 10.12.2009 against hypothecation of Mango and inter crops grown in schedule mentioned properties. Defendants No.2 to 4 stood as guarantors to the loan availed by defendant no.1 from Applicant bank. The defendants executed undertaking letter, consent letter by defendant No.1 to 4, pronote for a"sum of Rs.12.00 la khs, term loan agre agreement, g ua ra ntee bond by defendants 16.0;h*' . To secure the loan facility to defendant 1, t4e1dffiffit ndl: deposited the title W--n#

¶19

(oA. No.160/2023)

¶20

deeds to create equitable mortgage of immovable properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued recall notice dated 08.04.2015 and demand notice dated 02.77.20L7. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.29,68,398.93ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Eight and paise

¶22

Ninety Three only) with further interest @ 12.25% p.a with monthly rests from 01.01.2023 till the date oF realization. Hence the OA.

¶23

Defendants No.3 & 4 remained exparte. The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that the defendants I and 2 have not executed any loan documents and contended that all the documents are fabricated and forged. The defendants denied the execution of hypothecation agreement and also denied the creati of mortgage of immovable

¶24

properties. Hence prayed for

(oA. No.160/2023)

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri TSSV Gopala Rao, Senior Manager as AW.1 and through him marked2g documents as Ex.A.1 to A.29. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on t6.t0.2024.

¶29

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶31

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶32

ii) To what relief ?

¶33

Point No.i):

¶34

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly tement of account filed by Applicant Bank. placed any material that they have

¶35

(oA. No.160/2023)

¶36

not created mortgage of immovable properties in favour of Applicant bank.

¶37

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not hypothecated the movables and moftgaged immovable properties. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.29 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶38

Point No.ii)

¶39

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶40

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.29,68,398.93ps (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Eight and paise Ninety Three only) with further interest @ 12.25o/o p.a from 01.01.2023 till the date of realization;

¶41

B. The applicant bank is e the hypothecated fuf6, 6W movables and mortg Fproperffi in schedule to OA i^..;d * towards realization I ::,,. ,i^L::': ..l &,**-#

¶42

(oA. No.160/202 3)

¶43

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the^person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and^properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶45

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶46

t2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of Dec'2024)

¶49

sd/-

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

6"%
iy 4$
xRUE/POPV<br>,: 11oEC2ul :
',';t 3
[L ea-14
,:!Pi,,, ^:"m HYOEEABAD.
S&;:,"ts

¶52

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Mallu Ramchandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Mallu Ramchandra Reddy

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mr. J. Gopal Rao

Union Bank of India versus Mr. G. Srinivasa Sarma

K Padma versus Iifl Home Finance

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Narsimha Poultry Farm and Feed

Indian Overseas Bank versus Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (Pacs)

State Bank of India versus M/S. Om Sree Venkatanameswara Prelam Private Limited