Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kunchey Venkata Ranga Kiran

DRT4 Apr 2025OA/337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application for debt recovery, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Hyderabad held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.80,84,762.13 with interest. The mortgage/ hypothecation was upheld, allowing the bank to realize dues against vehicles and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Declaratory order for joint and several liability; permission to proceed against hypothecated vehicles and other properties for realization of dues.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Kunchey Venkata Ranga Kiran — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O4th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 337 OF 2024

¶4

Kotak Ma h indra Bank Ltd., Having its Office at 6-3- 1. 709 / 1/ p/ 302, 3'd Ftoot, lewel Pavani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082. Rep. by its Authorized Sjgnatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

I\4r.Kunchey Venkata Ranga Kiran, S/o. Satya na raya na, Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/0.H.No.3-2-155-1, Vidyanagar Cotony, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist-507101.

¶8

Mrs,Kunchey Padmavathi Devi, Wo.Venkata Ranga Kira n, Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.H.No.3-2-155-1, Vidyanagar Colony, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist-507101.

¶9

... Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.tvt.Srinivas Reddy Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.80,84 ,762.LBps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. from the date of _f7rrm,- ,^c, /\ -/,\Jt

-/^d'"

oA.NO.337/2024

the date of^{realization along with costs and in} application till default for sale of hypothecated^vehicles.

¶17

Summons served on^{D1 and 2 Theywere set ex-parteon} 15.7o.2024 as^{called absentand no representation'}

¶18

The Applicant Bank^{examined Abhishek P.s, Legal Associate,as} AW-1 and marked^{07 documentsthroughhim as Ex' A 1 to Ex'} A.07.

¶19

Ld. Counsel for the^{ApplicantBank reported ordersmay be} passed through merits. Perused^{the material placed on record'}

¶20

The^point that arises^{for considerationis:-}

¶21

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendants and^{OA hypothecated} vehicles?

¶22

As stated supra,^{the Defendants remained ex-parte The} Evidence Affidavit coupled^{with the recltalsin the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to A.O7 marked on^{behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the clalm of the^{Applicant Bank against the Defendants.} Hence, I hold that the^{Defendants are jointly and severallyliable} to^pay the OA claim to the^{Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶23

In the result, the^present Original^{ApplicationNo.337} /2024^is allowed as under:^-

¶24

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a^{sum of} fr*s

¶25

oA,.NO.337 /2024

¶26

Rs.B0,84,762.1Bps with future interest @10.37olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

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 to realise its debt;

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

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 O4th Day of April, 2025).

¶33

(MMESHWAR [/w"*KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kunchey Venkata Ranga Kiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kunchey Venkata Ranga Kiran

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Dr.Anus Dental Care.

Ayyappa Textiles versus Axis Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Sree Nidhi Medical and Surgical Agencies

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Byreddy Krishna Ramachandra Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus T Nagabushana Reddy

Chatakunta Venkata Subbamma versus Canara Bank