Allowed

The Axis Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Manopadu Swamy

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/191/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for debt recovery, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim against two joint defendants for a sum of Rs. 40,37,867 plus future interest, upheld the security by hypothecated assets, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 40,37,867 with future interest and costs; recovery certificate issued against the Defendants and hypothecated assets.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Manopadu Swamy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 191 OF 2026

¶5

The Axis Bank Ltd., 5-4-183/784, 3'd Floor, R P Road Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

14r. Ma nopadu Swamy S/o, M. Na rasimhaiah, Aged about 29 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.^H.No.32-87-2 Ward No.8, Peerlagutta, Wana Parthy lvl a ha bu bnagar- 509103.

¶9

Mrs. Manopadu Narasamma

¶10

D/o. Y Balaswamy, Aged about 46^Years

¶11

Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.32-87-2,^WardNo.8

¶12

Peerlagutta, Wanaparthy,^{M a ha} bu^{bnaga r- 5 09103.}

¶13

... Defenda nts

¶14

: lvlr. M. Srinivas Reddy Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-Pa rte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.40,37,867/- frcm the defendants^jointlyand severally with future interest @18o/o^{p.a. compoundedwlth} monthly rests from 05.04.2025 till^{the date} of^{realizationalong} with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated^{355s1. y'"*'}

¶19

oa.No.191/2025

¶20

¶21

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 27.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.191/2026 ls allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.40,37,867 / - with f uture i nterest @ 1 2. 90o/o p.a. simple from the date of appllcation till the date of rcalization;/Mn\r:\'/J's"'

¶29

oA.NO.191/2025

¶30

¶31

ii) the OA claim is secured^{bY way of} hypothecation of asset described^{in the} schedule annexed to the^{OA and the} applicant bank is entitled^{to proceed against} the same to reallse its debu

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

The Applicant Bank^{ls directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of^{receipt of this order'}

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a^{copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, sitned and^{pronounced by me in the open courton} this the 28th Day of April,2026).

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDlNG OFFICER

The Axis Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Manopadu Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Axis Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Manopadu Swamy

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

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

Karre Radha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Naresh Banothu

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Laxminarayana Narasimulu Palakurki

Union Bank of India versus Amma Petroleum Company.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Kalipi Farmers Service Co-Op Society Ltd.