Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. Veluru Viswanatha Naidu

DRT29 Oct 2025OA/352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. for recovery of a specific sum with future interest and costs against the defendant, who appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal held the defendant liable based on the evidence affidavit and marked documents.

What did the court decide?

Deemed payer of Rs.29,70,399.59 with future interest and costs; allowed execution proceedings.

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus Veluru Viswanatha Naidu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29T}I DAY OF OCTOBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application No: 352^{OF 2024}

¶5

Karur Vysya Bank Limited., Tadipatri Branch, Sunkulammapalem Tadipatri, Yadiki, Ananthapur District Andhra Pradesh - 515411. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Veluru Viswanatha Naidu, S/o.^Lakshmi Narayana, Aged about 31 Years # Ull7b, Main Road, RaYalacheruvu Yadiki, Ananthapur District Andhra Pradesh - 515455,

¶9

...".Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant^{: Mr' Lankalagannadham} Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶11

:: qLLLL ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.29,70,399.59ps from the defendant with future interest @16.15olo^p,a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte 'on 29.10.2024 as called absent and no / Xwn -2.c, representation. a {*."

¶14

OA.No.352/2024

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Chalapathi Rao PNSV, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06.

¶16

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled wlth the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.06 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, i hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.35212024 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.29,70,399.59ps with future interest @9.6570 p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^properties of the defendant^for realization of lts dues;

¶23

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. Ow*

¶24

OA.No.352/2024

¶25

I I I

¶26

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

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of October, 2025).

¶29

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. Veluru Viswanatha Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. Veluru Viswanatha Naidu

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. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v N Narendra Kumar

Mrs Nidamanuri Swaroop Rani versus Axis Bank

Magbul Jan versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Rayalaseema Bio Bags.

Uco Bank versus Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Vohul Techno Solutions