Allowed

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Pallapu Nagesh

DRT19 Sept 2024OA/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for debt recovery. It held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount with interest and costs, and affirmed the bank's right to realize dues from the hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 20,19,205.67 with future interest; the bank can proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and other properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Pallapu Nagesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL'IIAT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED^{THIS THE19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER'2024}

¶3

PRESENT:^{sH. RAMESHI'SIRI|&F,3:1"''L'LB' (Hons')' M'A'}

¶4

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATION No: 62 OF 2024}

¶5

M/s.Kotak^{Mahindra Bank Ltd',} Having its Office^{at 3'o Floor,} lewel Pawani^{Towers,Raj BhavanRoad,} Somajiguda,^HYderabad -^500082. R6.;;''[^{Autirorized signatorv.}

¶6

""'Applicant'

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr.Pallapu Nagesh

¶9

S/o. Mr. Bhadraiah, t0-4-B0lDltl626, GF, Azadchandraseh lkhar^Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana -^500026.

¶10

Mrs.Pallapu Sammavva

¶11

D/o.Mr.Rangaiah, L0-4-SOlDlt/626, GF, Azadchandraseh lkhar^Nagar,

¶12

Secunderabad; Telangana -^500026.

¶13

. .. Defendants

¶14

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

¶15

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶16

:: ORDER::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery^{a total} sum of Rs.20,19,205.67ps as on 25.07.2023 from^the

!f.rtt-v

oA.NO.62/2024

defendants joinfly and severa lly with future interest p 12o7o p.a. from the date of application tjlt the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶22

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex_parte on 03.07.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examjned p.S.Abhishek, Manager, as AW_1 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

¶25

passed through merits. perused the materlal placed on record.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶27

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

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to 4.06 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest a nd costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.62/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant BaIk a sum of |y'"^tw

¶31

oA.NO.52l2024

¶32

Rs.20,19,205'67ps^{with future interest} @l2o/o P.a.^{simple from the date of} application^{till the date of realization;}

¶33

the OA^{claim issecured bY way of}

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the l.9th Day of September, 2024).

¶40

/4w**

¶41

(kfuesHwnR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Pallapu Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Pallapu Nagesh

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

Farhana K C versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) versus Sh.Sukhavinder Singh

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Jmb Steel

Punjab National Bank versus Paramdeep Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Nitu Devi

Union Bank of India versus Ms Sunita Enterprises