Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Ambothu Vishnu

DRT10 Feb 2026OA/1056/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 46,29,901.51 with interest. The defendants were present ex-parte. The bank was directed to recover dues from defendants jointly and severally, seize the hypothecated vehicle, and enforce action against their properties.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed to recover Rs. 46,29,901.51 with future interest; secured by hypothecated vehicle and other properties; bank entitled to costs.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Ambothu Vishnu — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTFI DAY OF FEBRUARY,²⁰²⁶

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIV!ESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No:^{1056 OF 2025}

¶5

Kotak lYahindra Bank Ltd., Having its Branch Office al 6-3-1109ll/P /302 3'd Floor, lewel Pavani Towers,^RaJbhavan Road, Somajlguda, Hyderabad -^500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

14r. Ambothu Vishnu,^{S/o. A. Ramulu} Aged about 24 Years, Occ:^Business R/o. H. No.2-9 5, Thakkellaplly^Thanda Yacharam, Kothapalli - 501509.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

R/o. Plot No.23,^{BhagyaNagar Colony} Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁷⁹

¶11

lvlr. Ambothu^{Ramulu,S/o. A. Devajya} Aqed about 44^{Yearc, Occ: Business} R/o. H. No.2-9 5,^{Thakkellaplly Thanda} ...Defendants

¶12

Yacharam, Kothapalli - 501509

¶13

: Mr. 14. Srinivas Reddy

¶14

Counsel for the Appllcant

¶15

Defendants

¶16

: Ex-Pa rte

¶17

:: Q:LLLL ::

¶18

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.46,29,901.51ps^{from the defendantsjointly and} severally with future^interest @18olo^{p.a. from the date of} ("$

¶19

¶20

o4.No.1056/2025

¶21

application ti the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶22

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 09.02.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek p S, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.07 .

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the

¶25

material placed on record.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the On againlt the Defendants and OA hypoth;cabd vehicle?

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled wtth the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.O7 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the craim of the Appricant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendar and costs.ro pay the oA craim .",r" ^r;l'":::'#'l'# L',"jill,:::;

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.1O56/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Appligaflt //M",*Bank a sum of '12'-r$l

¶31

oA.NO.10s6/2025

¶32

Rs.46,29,901.51ps with future interest @10.39olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

ii) the OA ctaim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶34

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

¶35

iv) the appticant bank is enti ed for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 10. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. lDictated to the steno, corrected, srpned a oronounced bv me in the open court on this the 10" Da;;i;e1;r,;;;;i"^,

¶38

*ffi;!,,, PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Ambothu Vishnu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Ambothu Vishnu

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Capital Protection Force Pvt. Ltd.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Madur Gas Agency.

M/s. Idbi Bank Limited. versus Mr. Chintakuntla Bhaskar Reddy

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Pradeep Blue Metals.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Kamanoori Venkata Ramana

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd., versus Shashidhar Mukka