Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Medipelli Uppalaiah

DRT7 Feb 2024OA/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of a joint debt of approximately Rs. 63.13 lakhs plus interest and costs from two defendants, declaring them liable and directing the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; defendants jointly and severally liable to pay claim with interest; advocate to file cost memo; recovery certificate to be issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Medipelli Uppalaiah — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY,2024 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B,COM, L.L.B. (HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. O6 OF 2022

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. #6-3-1109/1/P/302, 3'd Floor, Jewel Pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda Hydera bad- 500082, Rep by its authorized signatory

¶4

.Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Medipelli Uppalaiah S/o. Yakaiah, aged about 51^years Occ : Business, H.No.46-248/3, Bhagatsingh Nagar, Qauthubullapur,^{Ranga Reddy} District-500055 2. Mrs. Medipelli Komala W/o. Uppalaiah, aged about 44 years Occ : Homemaker, H. No.46^-248/ 3, Bhagathsingh Nagar, Quthubullapur,^{Ranga Reddy} District-500055 Defendants.

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M, Srinivas Reddy Defendants : Exparte.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.63,13,476.78ps^jointly and severally from the defendants with interest @18o/op.a, from the date of the N*\

¶10

¶11

oa.06/2022

¶12

application till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule hypothecated vehicles.

¶13

Summons served on D1 & 2. They were set ex_parte on L2.09,2022, as called absent and no representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined Balaji Rao Kakarla, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 15 documents through him as

¶15

Ex. A.1 to Ex.A.15.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the applicant bank reported orders may be passed on merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA Schedule hy pothecated veh icles?

¶19

As stated supra, defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A1 to A.15 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 Apptication No.06/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. Rs.63,13,476.78ps with future interest ,.7tYrt

¶22

¶23

oA.06/2022

¶24

@9,25olo^p,a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶26

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

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7rh day of February, 2024).

¶31

fiy,u"' (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Medipelli Uppalaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Medipelli Uppalaiah

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

C K Prakasan versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh. Anil Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Sarbdial Singh

Canara Bank versus M/S Asad Corporation

Canara Bank versus Smt. Gayathri Madiraju

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Bhupal