Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. Jaya Laxmi Mining and Infra.

DRT28 Jul 2026OA/190/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for the recovery of an outstanding sum of Rs. 80,42,237/- with future interest against the defendants, who remained ex-parte, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 80,42,237/- with future interest @10.50% p.a., allowing proceeds from mortgaged properties, allowing recovery from defendant's person/properties, and directing cost mem

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Jaya Laxmi Mining and Infra. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM.,^{L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIG]NAL APPLICAT]ON NO: 190^OF 2026

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra., Miya pur Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. laya Laxmi Mining and Infra., Rep by its Proprietor Mr. K. layarami Reddy, S/o. T. Kistaiah, Age 59

¶10

Occ: Self Employee, H. No.10/ 117l4 NGO Colony, Mydu ku r Road Proddutur - 516362, A.P.

¶11

Mr. K. Jayarami Reddy, S/o. T. Kistaiah Age 59 Years, Occ: Self EmPloyee l.No.70l7l7 /4, NGO Colony, I4ydukur Road, Proddutur - 516362, A.P.

¶12

Mrs. K. Subbalakshumma

¶13

D/o. N. Narayana Reddy, Age 57^Years Occ: Self Employee, H.No.10/117l4,^NGO

¶14

Colony, Mydukur Road, Proddutur -^516362,A.P.

¶15

... Defendants

¶16

: Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-Pa rte

:: g-LLL& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recovery a total} sum of Rs.80,42,237/- as on^{72.72.2075 fromthe defendants} jolntly and severally with future inigrest @10.5090 p.a. from .1\y'^,!-<^. \

' ;!'u'^'t

oA.NO.190/2026

26.06.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule^properties.

¶25

WS of D1 to 3 not filed hence, their right was forfeited on 08.07 -2026 as called absent and no representation. DE not filed by D1 to 3 hence, their right was forfeited and was set ex-parte on 20.O7.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined C Arun Kumar, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶27

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

¶28

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

In the result, the present original Application No.190/2026 is allowed as under: - pS;,*

¶32

oA.NO.19ol2026

¶33

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.80,42,237l-^{with future [email protected]%} p.a. simple from the date of^{applicationtill} the date of^realization;

¶34

the OA claim^{is securedby way of mortgage}

¶35

ii) of properties^{described in the schedule} annexed to the^{OA and the applicant bank is} entitled to^{proceedagainst the same to} realise its^debU

¶36

iii) the applicant^{bankis also entitled to proceed} against^{the person and propertiesof} defendants^{for realization of its dues;}

¶37

iv)^{the applicant bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶38

B. The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from^{the date of receipt of this Order'}

¶39

q lssue^{RecoveryCertificate accordingly'}

¶40

to the Parties^concerned'

¶41

1. Communicate^{a coPY of this order} ol"""r"*O^{bY me in the oPencourt on} ;#;i;;1"^{,n" steno'corrected' signedand} thi, th"^{28tn DaY of JulY' 2026)'} ()Y6"u

¶42

()Y6"u r&rv(esnwnR^KoTHE) 'pnrstotttlc oFFICER

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. Jaya Laxmi Mining and Infra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. Jaya Laxmi Mining and Infra.

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

Kallakuntla Janardhan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Vinayaka Cold Storage versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Sri.Ashish Rahul Bhupathi and others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Nunavath Pentya

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Hitha Net India Pvt. Ltd.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Jaya Shakthi Rail Mech.