Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Siva Impex

DRT17 Sept 2024OA/374/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs.20,53,595.75 plus interest, costs, and sale of hypothecated assets against the defendants deemed to be ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Declaratory order holding defendants jointly and severally liable; recovery of principal sum with interest and costs; order to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties for realization; issua

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Siva Impex — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 17thDAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024}

¶3

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B'COM,, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{No: 374 OF 2022}

¶5

M/s.Kotak Mahindra^{Bank Ltd.,} Having its Office at^{3'o Floor,} lewel Pawani^{Towers,Raj BhavanRoad,} Somajiguda,^HYderabad -^500082. Rep. by its Authorized signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s.Siva ImPex, Rep by its Managing^Partner

¶9

Mr. ErgamreddY Lokeswa^rareddY,

¶10

Old 62, New 40,

¶11

Kuttiappan Street,^Chennai -^600010.

¶12

Mr.ErgamreddY^{LokeswarareddY,} Flat No.33026, JanaPriYa^UtoPia, Hyderguda Near Gandhi Statue,

¶13

Attapur, K.V.Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad-500048.

¶14

...Defendants

¶15

: M/s.N'B'Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant

¶16

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶17

:: ORDER::

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recovery a total} sum of Rs.20,53,595.75ps as on L2'04.2022 from^the a 77fiyy1o,^*<sup>'\1'"

¶19

o a.No.37 412022

¶20

defendants jointly and severally with future interest @ 16010 p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶21

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 27.02.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined P.S.Abishek, I\4anager, as AW-1

¶23

and marked 06 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06.

¶24

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

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assers2

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.06 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest a nd costs.

¶28

In the result, the^present Original Application No.374/2O22^is attowed as under: -

!fu,o**l

oA.NO'374/2022

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.20,53,595,75ps with future interest @ 9.98o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

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 entifled to proceed against the same to realise its debU

¶34

iii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed ;:,i;::,^{_"person and properties of} ts for realization of its dues; iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶35

B. The Applicant Bank is rrom the .",:;;;;,:1.:::"0^{.o rire} cosr Mei' '=mo within 2 weeks pt of this order.

¶36

Issue Recovery CertiFicate accordingly.

¶37

,;:corcerned ff #:T#$I1H*""T",Ly "T3tr;;,ff .lf f; 9 tn the open court on

¶38

f,70"'ur'r 'ruisi^K:r3::i"

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Siva Impex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Siva Impex

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

Ramkrupa Building Material Supplyers versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Gaurav Pralhadbhai Pawar And Ors. versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Haritbhai

Shubham Singh versus Authorised Officer Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Saurabh Bansal versus the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Sangita Singh