Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/282/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Karnataka Bank Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 1,08,02,842.36 payable by defendants jointly and severally, marking ex-parte proceedings and confirming liability with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.1,08,02,842.36 with interest @9.37% p.a.; claim secured by mortgaged property; Recovery Certificate issued.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-iI AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 282 OF 2026

¶5

Karnataka Bank Ltd., Shop No.38 & 39, Upper Ground Floor Bhanu Enclave, Near ESI Hospital Metro Station, Model Colony, Sundar Nagar, Sanath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna S/o. Ghantasala Gandhi, Aged about 42 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.7 -l-27 6/ Al106 3rd Floor, Sal Shyam Sadan, Lingaiah Nagar Near A K Ground Function Hall, Sanath Nagar, Hydera bad - 500018.

¶9

Mrs. Gantasala Saroja, w,/o. Ghantasala Gandhi, Aged about 64 Years, Occ: Housewife R/o. A-3-22A-733, 6th Floor, Near Health Plus Medical Shop, Rahamath Nagar Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500045.

¶10

... Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant

: Mr. N. Rama Rao

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,08,O2,842.36ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @7.82olo p.a. compounded monthly from the date of application till the date of realization arons with costs and ," o"r"r,, r".ZfJ*i{lidure^property.

¶17

oA.NO.282l2026

¶18

¶19

Summons served on D1 and 2 through^{paper publication.} They were set exparte on 23.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined Krishna Chaitanya, Legal lvlanager, as Aw-1 and marked 15 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.15.

¶21

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

¶22

The point that arises for conslderation is:-

¶23

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

¶24

As stated supra/ the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.15 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.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.28212026 is allowed as under:^-

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs,1,08,02,842.36ps with future interest

Ory"o*

oA.NO.28212026

@9.37o/o^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶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 entitled for the costs.

¶34

B. The Applicant Bank is 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, signed and^pronounced by me in the^{open court on} thisthe 24th Dayof rune,2026).

¶37

fty"W SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

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 Mr. M Kondal Reddy

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna

Canara Bank versus M/s. MD Rafi Boiler Poultry Farm

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nehemiah

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.