Allowed

Axis Bank Ltd., v. Kamalamma Jetavath

DRT22 Apr 2025OA/961/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues from defendants who had defaulted on a vehicle loan, relying on uncontroverted documentary evidence filed by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.25,78,174/- with future interest and costs; applicant bank authorized to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendants' properties for realization.

Axis Bank Ltd., versus Kamalamma Jetavath — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAy OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 961 OF 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Axis Bank Ltd., Having its Office at 5-2-t83/t84, 3'd Floor, Modi Square, R.P Road, Secunderabad Mandal, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

....Applica nt.

¶7

And

¶8

Kamalamma Jetavath, D/o. Amgoth Pikla, Age 53 Years, Occ: Business, Plot No.205/P, SBH Colony, Munaganoor Village, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad - 501505, Telangana.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Kamalamma Jeta vath, D/o. Amgoth Pikla, Age 53 Years, Occ: Business, H. No. 1- 173, Jillelguda, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500097, Telangana.

¶11

Naveen Kumar, S/o.Gopal Jetavat, Age 34 Years, Occ: Business, Plot No.205/P, SBH Colony, Munaganoor Village, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad - 501505, Telangana.

¶12

AIso at:-

¶13

Naveen Kumar, S/o.Gopal Jetavat, Age 34 Years, Occ: Business, H.No. 1- 173, Jillelguda, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500097, Telangana.

¶14

.... Defendants r^{'.\ti _,.,.n.f} ' ^.\

¶15

oA.96u2023

¶16

Counsel for the Applica^nt : M/s. Lotus Law Associates Counsel for Defendants : No Representation

¶17

:: qLLq& ::

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for^recovery of a sum^of Rs.25,l9,l74/- from the defendants^jointly and severally^with future interest @ 16%^p.a. compounded with monthly^rests from the date of application till the date of^{realisation along} with costs and sale hypothecated assets.

¶19

The averments of applicant bank as^per the OA, briefly, are that the 1"t defendant belng the^principal borrower and^2nd defendant being the co-applicant, availed vehicle loan from the appllcant bank. Defendants created hypothecation of OA schedule vehicle as security to the loan. Defendants executed necessary loan documents. Defendants failed and neglected to repay the loans as per the agreed terms. Despite several demands failed to regularize the account in spite of demand notlce dated 30.10.2023. As the defendants failed to clear ihe outstanding dues, the^present OA is filed.

¶20

Defendants entered appearance through their counsel Mr.Kranthi Kumar, but they did not choose to file written statement. Accordingly, defendants right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 30.08,2024.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Syed Shafiuddin, Sr. Manager as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06. k**

¶22

oA.96LlZO23

¶23

' 5. Defendants right of adducinq evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 06.03.2025.

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. DeFendants' rlght of advancing arguments forfeited on 28.03.2025. perused the material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and hypothecated assefs 2

¶27

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, after availing loan facilities, the defendants committed default in repayment desplte demand notice. Hence applicant bank is entitled to the OA claim considerinq the documents exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.06 through AW.1 and the recitals therein.

¶28

As stated supra, though defendants entered appearance through their counsel, they did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Accordingly their right was forfeited. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitats in Exs. A.1 to A.06 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the applicant bank with future interest and costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.961/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally

¶31

liable to pay to the Appllcant Bank a sum of . )v"..",,- .c.

¶32

// /\ /,'*lt/ -.:'

¶33

oA.951/2023

¶34

¶35

Rs.25,78,1741-^{wlth future} interest @9.650/0 p.a. simple from the^date of apPlication^till the date of^realization;

¶36

ii) the OA claim is^{secured bY way of} hypothecated assets^{described inthe} schedule annexed^{tothe OA and the} applicant^{bank is entitledto proceed against} the same to^{realise its debt;}

¶37

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

¶38

iv) the applicant^{bankis entitled for the costs.}

¶39

The Applicant^{Bank is directed to flle Cost Memo within 2 weeks} from the date^{of receipt of thls Order'}

¶40

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶41

Communicate^{a copyof this order to the partlesconcernedand} upload in Web^Portal.

¶42

(Dictated to the steno, signed and^{pronounced byme in ihe open court on this the} 22"d day of April,²⁰²⁵ )

¶43

PRESIDING OFFICER

Axis Bank Ltd., v. Kamalamma Jetavath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank Ltd., v. Kamalamma Jetavath

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

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.