Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Gangam Lakhpathi Raju

DRT9 Feb 2024OA/499/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad, allowed Original Application No.499/2022 filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against defendants for recovery of the loan amount, interest, and costs from the hypothecated vehicle and defendant properties ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.47,79,395.69 with future interest; applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties; costs awarded.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF^{FEBRUARY,2024}

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 499^OF 2022

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., # 6-3-t7O9l7lPl3O2, 3'd Floor, Jewel Pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.'..'Applicant.

¶6

Versus
1.Mr. GangamLakhpathiRaju, S/o.G.Rajeshwar Reddy, Age:35 Years,Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.2-14,Near Hanuman Temple, Govindupally, Chilwakodur, Gollapelly Mandal, Karimnagar-505532.
2.Mrs. Gangam Swapna, Wo.^{Gangam LakhpathiRaju,} Age:33 Years,Occ:Home Maker, R/o. H.No.2-14,Near Hanuman Temple, Govindupally, Chilwakodur, Gollapelly Mandal,Karimnagar-505532....Defendants
Counselfor theApplicant :Mr.M.SrinivasReddy
Defendants :Exparte

¶7

:: ILLLEB ::

¶8

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of FG.47,79,395.69ps from the defendants jointly and /'"

¶9

¶10

oA.NO.499/2022

¶11

severally with future interest @ 18yo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶12

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set exparte on 30.17,2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶13

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek p.S, Legal Associate, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶14

4, Ld. counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶15

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶16

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶17

As stated supra, the Defendants 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 Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶18

In the result, the present Original Application No.499l2022 is allowed as under: -

¶19

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of CWq

¶20

oA.NO.499/2022

¶21

Rs.47,79,395.69ps with future Interest @ 9.25olo p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of^realization;

¶22

ii) 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;

¶23

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

¶24

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶25

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

¶26

Issue Recovery certificate accordlngly.

¶27

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. {Dictated^to thesteno,^{signed and pronouncedby mein theopencourt on thisthe} 9s Day of February, 2024)^.

¶28

Ow* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Gangam Lakhpathi Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Gangam Lakhpathi Raju

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

Bank of Baroda versus Kailashben

State Bank of India versus M/s Sahu Bhandar and Others

State Bank of India versus M/s Anand Drug Enterprises and Others

Indusind Bank Limited versus Mrs.Shilpa Agarwal

Yes Bank Limited versus M/S Vivessa Industries Pvt. Limited

Yes Bank Ltd., versus Mr Masireddy Thirupati Reddy