Allowed

Indian Bank v. Mr. Papagari Subhash Chandra

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/1031/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application filed by Indian Bank for recovery of loans, the defendants did not appear. The Tribunal held the evidence sufficient and allowed the application, declaring defendants jointly liable for the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 35,69,173.11 with future interest and costs. Recovery certificate directed to be issued.

Indian Bank versus Mr. Papagari Subhash Chandra — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1031 OF 2025

¶4

Indian Bank., Near Y Junction, Shar Bypass Road Sullurpet SPSR Nellore District Andhra Pradesh - 524121. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. .....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Papagari Subhash Chandra S/o. Mr. P. Sivaji Rao, I4ajor R/o. D. No.2-806, Kondamitta Srikala hasti, Tirupathi District Andhra Pradesh - 517644.

¶7

Mrs. Rathod Preetal, D/o. Mr. Rathod Ramlal, Major, R/o. MIG 79, New Housing Board Colony, Battiswargaon Adila bad - 504001, Telangana.

¶8

... Defendants

¶9

: Mr. R. V. Subba Rao Counsel for the Applicant Defendants : Ex-pa rte

¶10

:: CLLLE& ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.35,69,173.11ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @10.2yo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of oA schedule properties. ' l:l ,a

¶12

oA.NO.103l/2025

¶13

¶14

WS not filed by D1 and 2 hence, their right was forfeited and were set ex-parte on 24.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Naresh Naik Bukke, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

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

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.1031/2025 is allowed as under:^-

¶21

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.35,69,173.11ps with future interest /ftan*

¶22

oA.NO.r031/2025

¶23

@9.25olo^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶24

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 entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debU

¶25

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

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

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 271h Day ofApril,2026).

¶30

(RfMESHwAR flry*"KOTHE)KOTHE)

¶31

(RfMESHwAR flry*"KOTHE)KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Bank v. Mr. Papagari Subhash Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Mr. Papagari Subhash Chandra

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

srikarampullaiah versus Canara Bank

Ms Hsc Construction and Others versus Union Bank of India

Nalam Narasimha Rao versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Faheemullah Khan

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.

Karre Radha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.