Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mrs. Daravat Sali

DRT24 Mar 2026OA/1054/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 40,76,130.84 along with future interest and costs. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable and authorized the bank to proceed against hypothecated assets, personal properties, and issue a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 40,76,130.84 with future interest and costs; bank allowed to proceed against hypothecated assets and personal properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs. Daravat Sali — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1054 OF 2025

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Having its Branch Office at 6-3-LLO9/L/P/302 3'd Floor, Jewel Pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Daravat Sali, D/o. Bhukya Chakru Aged about 73 Years, Occ: Self Employed R/o. H.No.6-27, Vattikhammam Pahad Chivvemla, Suryapet - 508213.

¶9

Mrs. Daravat Vijaya, W/o. D. Srinu Aged about 37 Years, Occ: Self Employed R/o. H.No.6-27, Vattikhammam^Pahad Chivvemla, SuryaPet - 508213.

¶10

Mr. Daravat Sreenu, S/o.^{D. Badru} Aged about 40 Years, Occ:^Business R/o. H.No.6-27, Vattikhammam^Pahad Chivvemla, SuryaPet - 508213.

¶11

... Defendants

¶12

: Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-Parte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.40,76,130.84ps^{from the defendantsjointly and} severaly with future interest ab$;rfrom^{the date of}

¶17

oA.NO.1054/2025

¶18

application till the date of^{realization alongwith costs and in} default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶19

Summons served on D1 to 3 through^{paper publication.They} were set ex-parte on 20.03.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek P S, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶21

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

¶22

The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶24

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 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.

¶25

In the result, the present Originat Apptication No.105412025 is attowed as under: - fu.Arl

¶26

oA.NO.1054/2025

¶27

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.40,76,130.84ps with future interest @9.92olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled 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 according ly.

¶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 24th Day of March,2026).

¶34

ffi"'^"o (MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mrs. Daravat Sali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mrs. Daravat Sali

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Sailesh Kumar Gujjar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Capital Protection Private Limited.