Allowed

Ms/.Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Sunkara Kp Chowdary

DRT27 Sept 2024OA/34/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues. With the defendant absent, the tribunal held the bank entitled to the claimed sum secured by hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendant liable to pay Rs.54,66,020.75 plus interest and costs; security by hypothecated assets granted; recovery certificate issued.

Ms/.Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Sunkara Kp Chowdary — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27TN DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 34 OF 2024

¶4

M/S.YES Bank Ltd., 2"d Floor, H.No.1-8-387, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S. P. Road, Secunderabad-500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M r. Sunkara KP Chowdary S/o.Mr.Babu Rao Sunkara, Flat No.220, Block B, SMR Vinay Symphony, Indra Na9ar, Gachibowli, K.V.Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad - 500032.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

M r. Sun kara KP Chowdary S/o.Mr.Babu Rao Su nkara, Plot No.1159, Flat No.400, The Gateway Ayyappa Society, Hyderabad - 500084.

¶10

Permanent Address:lvlr.Sunkara KP Chowdary S/o.lvlr. Babu Rao Sunkara, 37-93, 55, Mathura Nagar, Road No.4, Neredmetla, Hyderabad - 500056.

¶11

... Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Applica nt

:M/s.N.B.Sudarshan

Defenda nt

:Ex-parte

N'"""

oA.NO.34/2024

:: O-L9..rLB ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.54,66,020.75ps from the defendant with future interest @ 18Vo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶20

Summons sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement unclaimed hence, deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 10.07.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined D.Shyam Kumar Reddy, Asst. Vice President - Legal, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex.A.1to Ex.A.11.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated assets?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest anO cost7fu.^,t-1

¶26

oA.NO.34/2024

¶27

In the result,^{the present Original ApplicationNo'34/2024 is} allowed as^{under: -}

¶28

The Defendant^{is liable topay to the}

¶29

i) Applicant^{Bank a sum of Rs'54,66,020'75ps} with future interest @^{14'01olo p'a' simple} from the date^{of application till the date of} realization;

¶30

the OA claim^{issecured bY waY of}

¶31

ii) hypothecation^{of assets describedin the} schedule annexed^{tothe OA and the} applicant^{bank is entitledto proceed against} the same to^{realiseits debt;}

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶34

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of^{receipt of this Order'}

¶35

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶36

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno,^{corrected,signedand pronounced by me In the open court on} this the^{27th Day of September, 2024)'}

¶37

,,2(tto*n -, "t f-9 //,/ {o"'-

¶38

lnAfesnwnR^KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Ms/.Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Sunkara Kp Chowdary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms/.Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Sunkara Kp Chowdary

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

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited versus Patil Industries Private Limited

Hubtown Limited versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited versus Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited

Punjab National Bank (E-Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Five Core Exim Ltd.

The Nainital Bank Limited versus Mobi Trade Link

Idbi Bank versus M/S Strides Hr Solution India Pvt. Ltd.