Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Manchala Nageswara Rao

DRT4 Sept 2025OA/895/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT-II at Hyderabad allowed OA No.895/2023 filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank. The court held the defaulting defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the debt with interest and costs, secured by the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.58,42,365.25 with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgaged property; Relief Certificate issued; Direction to file costs.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Manchala Nageswara Rao — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE O4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 895 OF 2023

¶4

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited., 6-3- 7 t09 / tcl 7P -202, 2^d Ftoor Navbharath Chambers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

. ....Applicant.

¶6

VersuS

¶7

Mr. Manchala Nageswara Rao

¶8

S/o. Narasimham, Aged about 61 years Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.104 Sai Massonetts Apts, H.No.3-9-35 Ramdas Garden, West Maredpally Secunderabad - 500026.

¶9

AIso at:-

¶10

R/o. H. No.9-3-474 & 475(New No.417) Rezimental Bazar, Secunderabad-S00003.

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

c/o.Flat No.501 & 502, 4th Floor, Akshat Residency, Plot No.32, H.No. 10-2-28 West Maredpa y, Secunderabad-SOOO26.

¶13

Mrs. Manchala Venkataramana Wo.^Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Flat No.104 Sai Massonetts Apts, H.No.3-9-35 Ramdas Garden, West Maredpally Secunderabad - 500026.

¶14

Also at:-

¶15

R/o. H. No.9-3-474 & 475(New No.417) Rezimental Bazar, Secunderabad-500003. Also at:-at:kn

Also at:-at:-

oA.NO.895/2023

C/o.Flat No.501^{& 502,4th Floor, Akshat} Residency, Plot^{No.32,H. No.10-2-28} west Maredpally, Secunderabad-500026.

¶20

1. I\4/s.Chamundl Constructions., Rep by its l4anaging^Partner 14r. M.Nageshwara Rao/ Havlng^{its Office} At Flat No.101, Srisai^{Apt's,Road No.5} Street No.9, Nehru Naqar,^{West Maredpally} Secunderabad - 500026.

¶21

1. M r.l4a ncha I Vamshi Krishna Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o. Flat No.501 & 502, 4th^Floor,Akshat Residency, Plot No.32,^H. No.10-2-28 West Ma redpally, Secundera bad-500026,

¶22

1. Mr. M.Mohan Krish na Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o.Flat No.501 & 502,4th^{Floor, Akshat} Residency, Plot No.32, H. No.10-2-28 West Mared^pally, Secunderabad-500026.^{...Defendants} : M/s.lvl.Srinivas Reddy

¶23

Counsel for the Applicant Defenda nts :Ex-parte

¶24

:: ORDER ::

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a^total sum of Rs.58,42,365.25ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 22.05.2023 till the date of reallzation along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶26

Summons served on D1 to 3, whereas summons served on D4 and 5 through paper^publication. They were set ex-parte on ,"l-,"-",,.".,"...

¶27

20.Oa.2O24 as called absent and no representation. 1rI) '^{' I} -'07^!

¶28

oA.NO.89s/2023

¶29

The Applicant Bank examined p.sridhar Reddy, Senior tvlanager, as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.13.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶31

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶32

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

¶33

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.13 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest a nd costs.

¶34

In the result, the present Oriqinal Application No.g95/2023 ts allowed as under: -

¶35

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs.58,42,365.25ps with future interest @14.5olo p.a. simple from the date oF application till the date of realization;

¶36

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortqage of property described- in the_ schedule ,/ //lrtsa-.^.Va//^-.-os_\t . )/

¶37

oA.NO.89s/2023

¶38

¶39

annexed to^{theOA and the applicant bankis} entitled to^{proceedagainst the same to} realise its^debt;

¶40

iii) the applicant^{bank is also entitled to proceed} against the^{person and properties of} defendants^{for realizationof its dues;}

¶41

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶42

The Applicant^{Bankis directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date^{of receipt of this Order'}

¶43

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶44

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} coriected,^{signedand pronouncedby me in the open courton} i;;;;; * ""-, this the^{O4th DaYof September' 2025)}

¶45

^ .)
, . V -2,,\ yrrg., N .,^o, s
, t\.<br>( RAM€SHW}R KOTHE)
PRESIDING OFFiCER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Manchala Nageswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Manchala Nageswara 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mahalaxmi Agencies

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Guru Harshini Broilers Farm

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Lgas Labs Private Limited

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Gutti Balaji

Canara Bank versus Nageli Suneel Kumar