Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Siddharth Engineers

DRT5 Dec 2025OA/30/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Resolving an Original Application in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the court allowed the bank's claim for recovery of term loan and overdraft dues against five respondents. The judgment held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal, future interest, and costs, permitting the bank to proceed against mortgaged properties or the defendants' assets.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 75,48,593.62 with future interest and costs; grant of recovery certificate; permission to enforce against mortgaged and other pr

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Siddharth… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE OsTH^{DAYOF DECEIYBER,2025}

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{No: 30 OF 2025}

¶4

Karnataka Bank Ltd., Branch at t-1-26213, Plot^No.73 14ain Road, Dr. A S^{Rao NagarBranch} Dr. A S Rao Nagar, Secunderabad-^500062. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

. ....Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Siddharth Engineers., H.No.1-4-180/46, znd^Floor Sri Saibaba Officers Colony, Sainikpuri Medchal-Malkajgiri District Telangana State - 500094. Rep by its Partners Sridhar Kusuma lYallesham Kusuma

¶8

Mr. Srid har Kusuma, S/o. Mr.K.l,4allesham Aged about 55 Years, Occ: Business H.No.1-4-180/46, 2nd Floor Sri Salbaba Officers Colony, Sainikpuri Med ch a l- Ma lkajg iri District Telangana state - 500094.

¶9

Mr. Mallesham Kusuma, S/o.Ramaiah Kusuma, Aged about 86 Years, Occ: Business H.No.1-4-180/46, 2"d Floor Sri Saibaba Officers Colony, Sainikpuri Medchal-Malkajgiri District Tela ngana State - 500094.

¶10

Smt. Lizy Kusuma, Wo. Sridhar Kusuma Aged about 58 Years, Occ: House Wife H.No.1-4-180/46, 2nd Floor Sri Saibaba Officers Colony, Sainikpuri lYedchal-lYalkajgiri District Telanqana - State - 500094. - ... Defenda nts /Avz^.t,

¶11

U'r"-

¶12

¶13

oA.NO.30/2025

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Mr. N. Rama Rao

: Ex-parte

:: oRDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.7S,4B,5g3.62ps i.e., a sum of Rs.B,77,7BB.4Bps towards Working Capital Term Loan GECL Facility A/c.No.7337001800036601 with future interest @13.960lo p.a. and a sum of Rs.66,70,805.14ps towards over Draft Facirity A/c.No.733700600021201 with future interest @16.900lo p.a. from the defendants joinUy and severally from the date of application till the date of realization arong with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶20

Summons sent to D1 to 4 returned with endorsement unclaimed hence, deemed to be served. They were set ex_parte on 2L,02.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Ganesh Kumar A, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 39 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.39.

¶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 properties?

¶25

oA.NO.30/202s

¶26

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.39 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.

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.30/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.75,48,593.62ps i.e., a sum of Rs.8,77,788.48ps towards Working Capital Term Loan GECL Facility Alc. No. 7337001800036601 and a sum of Rs.66,70,805.14ps towards Over Draft Facility A/c. No.73370060 0O2t2Ori with future interest @8.96% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

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

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization ot rrt Ou"r4garrO

¶32

oA.NO.30/2025

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for'the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

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 05th Day of December, 2025).

¶37

PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Siddharth Engineers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M/S. Siddharth Engineers

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

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Matrix Lab Tech

Sri Telaganeedi Sivarampratap versus Union Bank of India

Csb Bank Limited versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Dheeraj Traders

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Musti Srinivas Yadav

Bank of India versus Sri. Chekuri Nagavenkatarama Raju