Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Challa Raghupathi Reddy

DRT21 Jul 2026OA/248/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this OA for recovery of dues, the Debts Recovery Tribunal examined documents exhibited by the Applicant Bank and heard its representative. Since the Defendants remained in absentia, the Tribunal held that the Bank established its claim. The OA was allowed, and the Defendants were ordered to pay the outstanding sum plus future interest.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.75,21,759.27 with 10.50% interest; recovery of debt via hypothecated vehicle and personal properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Challa Raghupathi Reddy — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 213t DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPICHAND, PREStDlNG OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 248 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Assets Recovery Branch D.No.5-8-356 to 362, 3rd Floor Chirag Ali Lane Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s Challa Raghupathi Reddy Proprietorship concern Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Challa Raghupathi Reddy

¶9

R/0.3-1 1-14l2 Flat.No.501 ,

¶10

Sainivas Enclave, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 500 013

¶11

Mobile No :9848911544

¶12

Email ld: [email protected]

¶13

Challa Raghupathi Reddy S/o. Challa Malla Reddy Age: 50 Years; Occ: Business

¶14

R/0.3-1 1 -14l2 Flat.No.501, Sainivas Enclave, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500013 Mobile No:9848911544 Email ld: [email protected]

¶15

(oA. No. 24812025)

¶16

Anitha Challa D/o. Sammi Reddy Poreddy Age: 45 Years; Occ: Business R/0.3-1 1 -14l2 Flat.No.501, Sainivas Enclave, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500013 Mobile No :9848911544

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel fortheparties:
ForTheApplicant	LotusLawAssociates
Forthe Defendants	Exparte
Reservedon	20.07.2026
Pronouncedon	21.07.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	21.07.2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.75,21,759.27 Ps. (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and Paise Twenty Seven Only) with future rate of i .50% p.a with monthly rests from the date of this date of realization and in default for sale of dllehicle as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA. , '-.. t. '

¶21

¶22

(oA. No. 248/2025)

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendants no. 1 and Defendant No. 2 availed Vehicle loan facility of Rs.1,44,00,0004 with interest and executed necessary documents such as Loan Agreement dated 27.10.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 2 and 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed Agreement of Guarantee dated 27.10 .2022 in favor of the Applicant BankThe Defendants Hypothecated Vehicle morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed documents in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued Loan Recall notice dated 05.12.2024 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 20.07.2026.

¶25

Sri. N. Venkata Sesha Giridhar, Legal Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.8.

¶26

Heard br the Applicant Bank.
:.''ii
f,j
r.1 ,1

¶27

(OA. No. 24812026)

¶28

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶29

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.8. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶30

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶31

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.75,21,759.27 ps. (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and^paise Twenty Seven Only) with future rate of interest @10.50% p.a with monthly rests from the date of thls application till the date of reallzation.

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated V 3ntionedⁱⁿ the Schedule of Property .1.1 to the OA debt due.

¶33

2 I ltJL Wfi

¶34

lOA.^No.248/20261

¶35

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendant No. 1 to 3 towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶37

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶38

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21"i day of Jul, 2026)

¶41

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶42

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

,liT-r, HYDaPAS),',!),

Karur Vysya Bank v. Challa Raghupathi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Challa Raghupathi Reddy

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kovuri Nagesh Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited

Ms Maha Bharati Foot Wear India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indusind Bank Ltd.

pratap jadpod versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles

State Bank of India versus Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar

Canara Bank versus M/S.Sreelatha Textiles