Allowed

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

DRT18 Jun 2025OA/613/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Bank's Original Application for recovery. Being an ex-parte order, Bank's documents clinched the claim. Defendant liable to pay principal, future interest, andOA schedule property mortgaged to secure the debt.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.20,06,575/- with future interest;OA claim secured by mortgage of property; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/S. Canara Bank versus Mr. Vantaala Lokanatha Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

,dtror*^r* IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1B,h DAy oF tuNE, 2o2s

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB. (HonS.), IY.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 613 OF 2OZ4

¶5

lvl/s.Canara Bank., Garladinne Branch at 5 - 12, Laleppa Garden, Garladinne, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh-S15731. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M r.Vantaala Lokanatha Reddv. S/o.Narayana Reddy, Aged a6out 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. p.Kottapalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur Districi-51573 1.

¶9

. .. ... Defenda nt 4.-r. . Sqs 4. Counsel for the Applicant M/s.TArikpdm€hittuar' -

Defendant

:Ex-parte

:: oRDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.20,06,575/- 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 property.

¶14

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement refused hence, deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on f2.03.2025 as called absent and no representation . tu -Z^-6'1" ^ty.._-

¶15

oA.NO.613/2024

¶16

Bank examined^{KasimallaPrem} Kumar, Manager,

¶17

The Applica^nt as AW-1^and marked 14^{documents through} him as Ex.A.1^to Ex.A.14.

¶18

Ld. Counsel^{for the Appticant Bank stated orders may be passed} on merits.^{Perused the materialplaced on record'}

¶19

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

¶20

whether the^{ApplicantBank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendant^{and OA schedule} ProPertY?

¶21

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remainedex-parteThe} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to^{A.14 marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the^{claimof the Applicant Bank against the Defendant'} Hence, I^{hold that the Defendant is liableto pay the OA claimto} the Applicant^{Bank with future interestand costs'}

¶22

In the result,^{the present OriginalApplicationNo 613/2024 is} allowed as^{under: -}

¶23

The Defendant is liable to^{pay to the}

¶24

i) Applicant Bank a^{sum of Rs.20,06,575/-with} future interest @11.5olo P^{a. simple from the} date of application^{till the date of realization;}

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured^{by way of mortgage} of property described in^{the schedule} annexed to the OA and the^{applicant bankis} .Ct

¶26

oA.NO.613/2024

¶27

¶28

entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶29

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

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

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 18th Day ofJune, 2025),

¶34

z'/A\rn'y,- -,rYc> ,/ //\ -,' -1,>\ / r/ <t;\J\ (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. Gorakati Kodameeda Rayudu

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Gunde Srinu