Allowed

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. Gaddam Saritshwar Rao

DRT9 Jan 2025OA/358/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of a debt of Rs.86.90 lakhs from a defendant. The defendant remained ex-parte. The Tribunal held the defendant liable to pay the amount with interest and secured the claim via mortgage.

What did the court decide?

The defendant was directed to pay Rs.86,90,311.33 with interest, and the applicant was entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendant's person for realization.

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus Gaddam Saritshwar Rao — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THE OgIh DAY OF JANUARY' 2025} PRESENT:^{sH. RAMESHWAR,XRI|SiF;3:X'',L'LB(Hons',)',M A'}

¶2

ORIGINAL^{APPLiCATIONNO: 358 OF 2024}

¶3

The Karur^{VYSYa Bank Ltd,} lubilee^{Hills Branch,} Plot No.265,^{I Keerthilvlansion,} Road No.10,^{JubileeHills,} Hyderabad,^Telangana -⁵⁰⁰⁰³³ ' n6p. Uv itt'artnor'ized Signatory. "Applicant'

¶4

Versus

¶5

Gaddam Sa ritshwar^Rao, S/o.G. B.Shyam^Rao, Aged about 45 Years, Occ:^Business, H.No.2-2-1107/87,82, Tilaknagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500044.

¶6

... Defenda nt

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.Lanka Jagannadham Defendant : Ex-parte

¶8

::^q]LLqB ::

¶9

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.86,90,311.33ps From the defendant with future interest @ 13.85o/o^p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of^OA schedule^property.

¶10

Summons served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte^on nt.'r,t,

¶11

73.0g.2024 as called absent and no representation. ' -_"

¶12

oa.NO.358/2024

¶13

The Applicant Bank examined PNSV Chalapathirao, Senior

¶14

Manager Legal, as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through

¶15

him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.09.

¶16

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passed

¶17

0n merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arjses for consideration is:_

¶19

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

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.09 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.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.358/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.86.90,311.33ps with future interest @9.55o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule

¶24

oA'No'358/2024

¶25

¶26

annexed^{to the OA and the applicant bankis} entitled^{to proceedagainst 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 entitledfor the costs'}

¶29

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file CostMemowithin2 weeks} from the^{date of receipt of this Order'}

¶30

¶31

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶32

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno,^{corrected,signedand pronounced by me in the opencourt on} this the ogih^{Dayof JanuarY,2025).}

¶33

gY.

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. Gaddam Saritshwar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. Gaddam Saritshwar Rao

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

Ms Om Oil and Ginning Industries versus State Bank of India

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Bhat

Baljit Kaur versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs.Boadsu Renuka

Canara Bank versus K Sambaiah

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M. Balaguri Venkatesh