Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s. Arktech Enterprises.

DRT9 Jan 2026OA/274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application, holding defendants jointly and severally liable to repay a principal sum with future interest and costs, directed the issuance of a recovery certificate, and permitted proceedings against assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.27,38,379 with future interest; Recovery Certificate issued; Bank entitled to proceed against assets and persons/properties.

Bank of India versus M/s. Arktech Enterprises. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O9TII DAY OF ]ANUARY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 274 0F 2025

¶6

Bank of India., Malkajgiri Branch, Hyderabad, Telangana. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Arktech Enterprises., sy.No.30, Plot No.192 Main Road Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500047. Represented by its Prop Mr.Swithin Samson S/o. Sri. David Stanley.

¶10

Mr. Swithin Samson, S/o.David Stanley Aged about 39 Years, R/o.Flat^No.218 Surya Splendor Apartments,^Shanthi Gardens, Nacharam, Secunderabad Telangana state'

¶11

...Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the APP|icant : Ms. K. indira

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: qLLLL ::

The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.27,38,379l-^{from the defendantsjointlyand} severally with future^{[email protected]/o p.a. with monthlyplus} 2olo^penal interest from^{the date of applicationtill the date of} realization along^with ,9sts^{and in default for sale of} //lt<pz^u hypothecated assets. A A'"-

¶17

oA.NO.274l2025

¶18

wS of D1 and 2 not filed^hence, their^{right was forfeitedand} was set ex-parte on 24.70.2025 as called absent^{and no} representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined V.Prashanth Kumar, Branch Head, as AW-1 and marked 12 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.12.

¶20

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

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets 2

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.12 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Originat Apptication No.274/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are join|y and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.27,38,379/- with future interest @10.90% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realizat,on:^{\e' -}

¶26

oA.N0.274l2o2s

¶27

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against}

¶29

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

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶31

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

¶32

Issue' Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy^{of this order to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 09th^{Day of JanuarY,2026l,.}

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. M/s. Arktech Enterprises.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s. Arktech Enterprises.

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

State Bank of India versus Chekarla Narayana Swamy

V Prameela and v Rajasekhar versus Punjab National Bank

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Nerella Sathish Goud

Bank of India versus M/S S a Fashions

Bank of India versus Mr. Anish Kumar Kommineni

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Peddugaradaihgari Ganeshwer Reddy