Allowed

m/s. Canara Bank v. Mr. Gorakati Kodameeda Rayudu

DRT18 Jun 2025OA/576/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery. Ruling ex-parte due to the defendant's absence, the court found the documents filed by the bank sufficient to establish the defendant's liability for the outstanding dues and future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 21,81,787.10 with future interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

m/s. Canara Bank versus Mr. Gorakati Kodameeda Rayudu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 576 OF 2024

¶5

M/s. Cana ra Bank., Garladinne Branch at 5 - 12, Laleppa Garden, Garladin ne, Ana nthapur District, Andhra Pradesh-515731.

¶6

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applica nt.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ivlr.Gorakati Kodameeda Rayud u, S/o.G. Sha nkaraia h,

¶10

Aged about 55 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.lvlarthadu Village, Garlad inne Mandal, Ananthapur District - 515731.

¶11

....DeFendant

¶12

: lY/s.V.Y.Das Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

Defendant : Ex-parte

¶14

:: :: (1f,[f(

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.21,81,7871- frcm the defendant with future interest @18o/o^p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶16

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 07.O4.2O25 as called absent and no representation CIW*

¶17

oA.NO.s7612024

¶18

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined^{KasimallaPrem} Kumar, 14anager, as AW-1 and^{marked 13 documents through} him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13.

¶20

Ld. counsel for the^{Applicant Bankstated orders may be passed} on merits. Perused the^{materialplaced on record.}

¶21

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

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule properties?

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant^{remainedex-parte.The} Evidence Affidavit coupled with the^{recitalsin the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to A.13 marked on^behalf of^{the ApplicantBank} 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^{interestand costs.}

¶24

In the result, the^present Original^{ApplicationNo.57612024 is} allowed as under:^-

¶25

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to^the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,81,787l-^with future interest @11.75olo^p.a. simple^{from the} date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is 7/ffitf

¶27

¶28

oa-No.s76/2024

¶29

entiued to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

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 18rh Day ofJune, 2025).

¶35

Zw*" (nln(esHwan xorne) PRESIDING OFFICER

m/s. Canara Bank v. Mr. Gorakati Kodameeda Rayudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

m/s. Canara Bank v. Mr. Gorakati Kodameeda Rayudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yes Bank versus Orsu Alluraiah

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Gorijala Pavan Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Naga SHiva Agencies

M/S. Canara Bank versus Mr. Vantaala Lokanatha Reddy

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Shree Krishna Roadways

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Gunde Srinu