Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.Jugal Kishor Gupta

DRT29 Apr 2024OA/584/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of dues from three defendants. The court proceeded ex-parte, accepted the evidence, and held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with interest and costs, permitting realization from hypothecated vehicles and properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants made jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 23,31,100.56/- with future interest; OA claim secured against hypothecated vehicles. Recovery Certificate issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr.Jugal Kishor Gupta — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 5A4 OF 2023

¶4

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Office: 3d Floor, Jewel Pawani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda. Hyderabad-500082. Rep by its Authorized.

¶5

....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr.Jugal Kishor Gupta, S/o. Mr.Radhey Shyam Gupta, 8-5-235/6, Sindicate Bank, Old Bowenpally, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500011.

¶8

ALSO AT;

¶9

Mr. lugal Kishor Gupta, S/o, Mr.Radhey Shyam Gupta, 6-795/7, Boudha Nagar, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad-500055.

¶10

GUARANTORS:

¶11

Mr. Parmindar Singh, S/o. Mr. Baljinder, Flat No.202, Sri Sai Sindhu Homespet, Basheerabad, Quthbullapur, Hyderabad-500055.

¶12

Mr. Nand Kishor, S/o Mr. Muni Ram, Flat No.3O3,3d Floor, Sri Raj Residency, Kompally, Hyderabad-500014.

....Defendants.

f,^^'r'

oA.sa4l2023

Counsel for the Applicant

Defenda nts

:Mr. N. B.Sudarshan

:Exparte.

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,31,100.56/- joinuy and severally from the defendants with interest @L7o/o p.a,, monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule Hypothecated vehicles.

¶22

Summons served on D1, whereas summons served on D2 and 3 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on !5.02.2024, as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek^p.S. as AW-1 and marked 8 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to EX.A.B.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant bank reported orders may pursed on merits. Perused the materlal placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

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

¶27

As stated supra, defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A1 to A.8 marked on behalF of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are join y and severally liable to pay 2W*"

¶28

oa584/2023

¶29

¶30

the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, the^present Original Application No.584/2023^is allowed as under: -

¶32

i) the defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. Rs.23,31,100.56/- with future interest @15.52olo^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 vehicles described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same for realization of its dues;

¶34

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

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

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 296 day ofApril, 2024).

¶39

7'flww-..^u / /, -/'1V2 t / //'/^{rz1^nv-} ffillesnwen^xornel <sup>PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.Jugal Kishor Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr.Jugal Kishor Gupta

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

Anis Anvarbhai Ghanchivahora versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Mansi Manilala Rangani

Bank of Baroda versus Krishna Oil Industries

Deepak Prakashbhai Ramchandani Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Aishwarya Food Company

Canara Bank versus M/S Riddhi Jewellers