Allowed

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/142/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank seeking recovery of debt. The tribunal held against the ex-parte defendants, ordering them to pay the claimed sum along with interest and costs, and secured the debt via hypothecation of a vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed. Defendants to pay sum with interest and costs. Application secured by hypothecated vehicle.

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), 14.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 142 OF 2026

¶4

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Having its Office at 3.d Floor, lewel Pawani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala S/o. Mr. Sathi Reddy Samala Villa No.7, Living Spaces, Aparna Palm Meadows Road, Kompally Hyderabad - 500100.

¶7

Mrs. Samala lyothi Reddy D/o. Mr. Chandra Reddy Chengaram Villa No.7, Living Spaces, Aparna Palm Meadows Road, Kompally Hyderabad - 500100.

¶8

... Defendants

¶9

: M/s. N. B. Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: CL&LE& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.45,89,386.11ps as on 07.L0.2025 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

Ory"*'

oA,NO,L42l2026

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on L9.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶22

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 join y and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Originat Apptication No.14212026 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.45,89,386.11ps with future interest @9.29o/o p.a. simple from the date of apptication ti the date of reatization/2ff-p5.rt

¶25

oA.NO.L42l2O26

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in tlle open court on this the 22nd Day orJune, 202G).

¶33

()ffo*"ru (M'rE(HWffi*orrq PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala

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

Mr Yempalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Perumandla Kishan versus M S Ikf Home Finance

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hygiene Retail India Private Ltd.