Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Bharath Traders

DRT22 Apr 2025OA/378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application for recovery of dues. Defined joint and several liability of respondents for the sum, validated claim over hypothecated vehicle, and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Judgment allowed. Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.24,32,743.68 plus future interest and costs. Secured by hypothecated vehicle. Recovery Certificate issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bharath… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{22NODAY OF APRIL,2025}

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{No: 378 OF 2024}

¶5

M/s. Kota k lvlahindra Bank^Ltd., Having its office at^{3'd Floor,} lewel Pawa ni^Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somaiiguda, Hydera bad - 500082. Rep, by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

Applicant'

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Bha rath^Traders., Represented bY its^ProPrietor Mr.Syed Khadeer,^{1-65 F,} NGKL Road, Kalwaku^rthy,

¶9

Nagarkurnool, lvla ha bubnagar, Telangana - 509324.

¶10

14r.Syed Khadeer, Proprietor of M/s.^{Bharath Traders,} 12155, Nagarkurnool,^Kalwakurthy, Vidyanagar, Mahabubnagar, Telanga na - 509324.

¶11

lYs.Irfa na Begum,^{D/o.l'ls.Begum,} 255, Vidyanagar, Ma habubnagar, Kalwakurthy, Telangana - 509324.

¶12

., Defendants

¶13

: M/s. N. B.Suda rshan Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex- Parte

::^qLD-LL ::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.24,32,743.6aps as on^{18.06 2024 fromthe} (-z'--",f)wy";.u-^".

¶18

¶19

oA.NO.378/2024

¶20

defendants joinUy and severally with future interest @18olo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sate of hypothecated vehicle.

¶21

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper publication. They

¶22

were set ex-parte on 73.12.2024 as called absent and no

¶23

representation.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined p.S.Abhishek, Legal tvlanager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.07 .

¶25

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be

¶26

passed through merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶29

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.O7 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are join y and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶30

In the result, the present Original Application No.37g/2024 is

¶31

allowed as under: - Y*'*

¶32

oA.NO.378/2024

¶33

¶34

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.24,32,743.68ps as on 18.06.2024 with future interest @8.0270 p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶35

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 debu

¶36

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

¶37

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, correated, si8ned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d Day ofApril, 2025).

¶41

fi26*ss I^',.,/

¶42

(MVESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Bharath Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Bharath Traders

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

Smt Jhansi Garikipati Rep by her Gpa Holder G Adiseshaiah versus Hdfc Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aqua Steel

Yes Bank Limited versus Bhupathi Chandu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sanjeev Katiyar

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs.P Geethanjali

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals.