Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Jetpat Komuraiah

DRT24 Oct 2025OA/182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 41.41 lakh against ex-parte defendants. The court directed the defendants to pay the sum with interest and costs, and recognized the bank's right to proceed against both the hypothecated vehicle and the defendants' properties.

What did the court decide?

Sum of Rs.41,41,067.16 with interest at 9.25% p.a., costs, and realization rights over hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Jetpat… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR Ko o*.rro,rl'jirtfJfl^{', L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.}

¶2

ORTGINAL APPLICATION No: 182 OF 2O2Z Kotak Ma h indra Bank Ltd.. Having its Branch Office a[ o- 3- 1 109/ 1 lP /302, 3.d Ftoor Jewel^pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad_5000g2. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶3

.....Applica nt.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Mr. Jetpat Komuraiah, S/o.Narsaiah :9e0.99out^{44 years, Occ: Business} R/o. H..No.g-22, Rajeevnagar tsasanthnagar, palakurthv Karimnagar District _ 5Oii 87.

¶6

Mrs..Jetpat Laxmi, W/o. komuratah Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business R/o. H. No.g-22, Rajeevnaoar Hasanthnagar, pa la kurthv Karimnagar District _ soi 187.

¶7

... Defendants

¶8

Counsel for the Applica nt

¶9

Defendants

¶10

M/s. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶11

Ex-parte

¶12

:: oRDER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.41,41,067.16ps from the defendants joinuy and severally with future interest @1go/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypotheca tea veniclefurr.g

¶14

oA.NO.182/2022

¶15

Summons^{seNed on D1 and 2' Theywere set ex-pafte on} Ot.ar.2o2^{as called absent and no representation'}

¶16

The AW-1^{Applicant Bank examined and marked08 documents P S through Abhishek' him as Legal Ex' A'1 Manager' to Ex'as} A.08.

¶17

Heard the^{Ld Counselfor the APPlicantBank'Perused the} material Placed^{on record'}

¶18

The^{point that arises for considerationis:-}

¶19

Whether^{the ApplicantBank is'entitled'} for the^{claim rnade in the OA agatnst'} the^{Defendants and OA hYpothecated}

¶20

vehicle?

¶21

6.^{As stated supra' the Defendants remained ex-parte The} Evidence^{Affidavit coupledwith the recitalsin the documents} viz.,^{Exs'A'1to A 08 marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches^{the claim of the Applicant Bank againstthe Defendants'} Hence,lholdthattheDefendanEarejointlyandSeverallyliable to^{pay the oA claimto the Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and^costs'

¶22

7.^{In the result, the present Original Application No 182/2022is} allowed^{as under: -}

¶23

The Defendants^{are jointly and severally}

¶24

i) liable to^{pay to the Applicant Banka sum of} Rs.41,41,067'16ps^{with future interest} @9.250lo^{p asimple from the date of} appfication^{ti the date ot realizarionfut.f}

¶25

oA.NO,t82l2022

¶26

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;

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

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 24th Day of October, 2025).

¶32

(fu6**

¶33

(RAFTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Jetpat Komuraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Jetpat Komuraiah

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

Icici Bank Limited versus K R Agency

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Rabbani Silk Emporium

T Lalitha Kalyani versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Digital Technology Services, Rep. by Its Proprietor

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. G. Veera Gangadhara Kasi

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Aveng Automine Pvt. Ltd.