Allowed

Bank of India v. Mr. Varikuppala Mahesh

DRT20 Nov 2025OA/100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Bank of India's Original Application for recovery of over ₹32.5 lacs from three defendants based on ex-parte evidence, holding them jointly and severally liable for overdraft, ECLGS dues, mortgage security, and interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay ₹32,52,265.07 with future interest; OA secured by mortgaged property; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Mr. Varikuppala Mahesh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 100 OF 2025

¶5

Bank of India., Khairatabad Branch, Ground Floor PTI Building, A C Guards, Masab Tank Hyderabad - 500004.

¶6

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Varikuppala Mahesh, S/o.V.Yellaiah Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Business, Male R/o. H.No.8-3-169/60/ t378/ A/70 T Anjauah Nagar, SPR Hills, Yousufguda Hyderabad - 500045.

¶10

Kodidhala Renuka Alias Kuncham Renuka W/o. Kodidhala Nagaraju Aged about 32 Years, Occ: House Wife R/o. H. No.8-3-169/60/7378/ A/70 T Anjauah Nagar, SPR Hills, Yousufguda Hyderabad - 500045.

¶11

Mrs. K. Venkatamma Alias Venkata Lakshmi W/o. Varikuppala Mahesh Aged about 32 Years, Occ: House Wife R/o. H. No.8-3- 169/60/ 1378/ Al70 T Anjauah Nagar, SPR Hills, Yousufguda Hyderabad - 500045.

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Defenda nts

¶15

: Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao , r"-ou*fu€

oA.NO.100/202s

:: g-LLE& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.32,52,265.07ps i.e., a sum of Rs.30,30,714.55ps towards Over Draft A/c. No.860925110000125 with subsequent interest @11.35yo p.a. and a sum of Rs.2,21,550.52ps towards ECLGS A/c. No.860970210000116 with subsequent interest @9.25%^p.a. from the defendants^jointly and severally with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule^property.

¶20

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 28.08.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

J. The Applicant Bank examined Anusree, Legal l4anager, as AW-1 and marked 24 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.24.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. 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 Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.24 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 /Ar,*..c.

¶26

/ // A -/.-L-t,/ 'tv "

¶27

¶28

oA.NO.10O/2025

¶29

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

¶30

In the resutt, the present Original Apptication No.1OO/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.32,52,265. OTps i.e., the defendants 1 to 3 are joinuy and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,30,714.55ps towards Over Draft A/c. No. 860925110000125 and the 1st defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,21,5S0.52ps towards ECLGS A/c. No.86O97O21OOOO 116; with future interest @12.75olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. $rt"

¶35

oA.NO.1oo/202s

¶36

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 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, corrected,signedand pronounced by me in the open courton} this the 20th^{Day of November, 2025)'}

¶39

fr)Wfi (i(uesuwnR KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Bank of India v. Mr. Varikuppala Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mr. Varikuppala Mahesh

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

Canara Bank versus Mr. Vedantham M. Vishnu Charan

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Md. Zain Uddin

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mdh Motors Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kannegoni Dhanaiah

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Sriveda Educational Society

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kakarla Divakar Naidu