Allowed

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

DRT5 Mar 2026OA/246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of Rs. 42,23,148.10 along with future interest and costs against two respondents who remained ex-parte. Liabilities were secured by hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed with interest @10.32% p.a. from date of application; proceedings against hypothecated assets and respondents' properties directed; costs awarded to applicant.

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mrs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5tn DAY oF MARCH, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 246 OF 2025

¶5

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

¶6

......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi, D/o. Mr. Esra Sapavath, Age: 35 years, OCC: Self Employed, H No 17 205 4 A l lakeerhussain Nagar

¶9

Nalgonda - 508212

¶10

Mr. Gugulolothu Indraiah, S/o. Mr. Varsam,

¶11

Age: 45 years, OCC: Self Employed, H No 17 205 4 A 1 lakeerhussain Nagar Suryapet, Nalgonda - 508212

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

: Mr. N.B. Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Counsel for the Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

:: (!_f,[ff, ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 42,23,148.10 ps with future interest @18%^p.a. .'*" -., , .''/>Al\

¶17

oA.NO.2461202s

¶18

¶19

from t2.02.2024 till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of OA hypothecated asset.

¶20

Summon served on Defendants 1 & 2 and were set exparte on LL.47.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Abhishek PS, Assistant Manager, as AW-1 and marked B documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.B.

¶22

Heard ex-pafte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶24

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

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Aflidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.B marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.246/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 42,23,148.10 ps with future interest ,';Q7.*

¶28

oA.NO.24612OZ5

¶29

@10.32olo^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by m this the 5!h Day of March, 2026).

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

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

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Isarayal

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Rachineni Gangadevi

Ms Thulasi Traders Rep by its Prop Thulaseewar Reddy versus Shriram Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/s v N Interiors

Bank of India versus M/s. Venkata Ramana Laxmi Wlccs

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Suryaprabha Agro Farms