Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mr. Jatangi Vishwanth

DRT31 Oct 2025OA/504/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Debt Recovery Tribunal application filed by Punjab & Sind Bank for recovery of an amount of Rs. 33,19,304.41 along with interest and costs from the defaulting borrowers secured by mortgage property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants required to pay Rs. 33,19,304.41 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against scheduled property for realization; costs allowed.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr. Jatangi Vishwanth — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

INTHEDEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-II ATHYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE31STDAYOF OCTOBER,2025 PRESENT:SH.RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM.,L.LB,(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDINGOFFICER
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONNo: 504OF2025
Punjab & Sind Bank., LBNagar Branchat3-11-21 Laxminagar Colony,SurveyNo.64 LBNagar, Hyderabad-500074. Rep.byits AuthorizedSignatory. .....Appticant.
Versus
1.1.4r.latangiVishwanath,S/o.Mr.J.Venkat Swamy, AgedMajor, Occ:Business R/o.H.No.3-719,^ptotNo.7,NearCommon SBHColony, Munganoor Village Hayathnagar,Hyderabad-501511.
2.Mrs.JatangiMangamma,Wo.Mr.latangi Vishwanath,AgedMajor,Occ:Household R/o.H.No.3-7l9,PlotNo.7,Near Common SBHColony,Munganoor Village Hayathnagar,Hyderabad-501511.
3.lvlr.PajjuriAjith,S/o.P.Chandraiah AgedMajor, Occ:Business R/o.PlotNo,37,FSVNilayam NewMaruthinagar,Kothapet Saroornagar,Hyderabad-500035. ...Defendants
CounselfortheApplicant :tvr. V.Raghu
Defendants :Ex-parte
::ORDER:: (ModifiedasperDocketOrderDated0,4,12.2(J25) OV.""

¶2

oA.NO.s04/2025

¶3

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.33,19,304.41ps towards^HousingLoan A/c.No.13611200000014 from the^{defendants jointly and} severally with future interest @9.75olo^{p.a. with monthlyrests} from 01.04.2025 till the date of^{realizationalongwith costsand} in default for sale of OA schedule^property.

¶4

Summons served on Dl to 3 through^{paperpublication.They} were set ex-parte on 12.09.2025 as called^absentandno representation.

¶5

The Applicant Bank examined Sidhika^{Khanna, Sr Manager, as} AW-1 and marked 26 documents through^{her as Ex. A.1 to Ex.} 4.26.

¶6

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant^{Bank.Perused the} material placed on record.

¶7

The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶8

Whether the Applicant Bank^is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶9

As stated supra, the Defendants remained^ex-parte'The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals^{in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to A.26 marked on behalf of the^{Applicant Bank} clinches the claim of the Applicant^{Bank against the Defendants.} Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^{jointlyand severallyliable} to pay the OA claim to the Applicant^{Banr^U/ithfutureinterest} and costs. L-,//1ry.,v

¶10

oa.No.su/2O2s

¶11

is In the result, the present Original Application No.504/2025 allowed as under: -

¶12

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.33,19,304.41ps^{towards HousingLoan} A/c. No.13611200000014^{with future interest} @9olo^{p.a. simplefrom the date of application} till the^{date of realization;}

¶13

l)(a)^{the OA claim is secured by way of} rnol.tgug"^{ofproperty describedinthe} schedule^{annexedtothe OA and the} bank^{is entitledto proceed aeainst} ;;;;t the^{sameto realise its debu}

¶14

::"1:T"":t ii)^{the appricant ou* isar'o stiM} against^{tn" o"Tll} ton^{of its dues;} d;fendants^{for realiza}

¶15

iii)^{the applicant bank is entitled for the costs'} Memo^{wi'ihin 2 weeks}

¶16

¶17

¶18

r*tl#::"fl::T:li:'J:cos'! 'rssue necoverv^{certrficate **"t:l'.^"} nart^{es col9elle.d"ou,,}

¶19

**ffi'"t'..:.il.#":.;::lii":%ffi::

¶20

'#*ua:sul

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mr. Jatangi Vishwanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mr. Jatangi Vishwanth

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Penmatsa Krishnam Raju

Smt Kandi Uma versus Canara Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Shri Durga Laxmi Traders

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Lakdaram Chandrasekhar Reddy

M/S. Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. M Savitha

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Beemanapalli Nagamani