Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Nehemiah

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/352/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad adjudicated an application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against defendant M.N.Nehemiah for recovery of dues totaling Rs.25,86,115.45 plus interest and costs. The defendant being absent ex-parte, the court held the claim substantiated by documentary evidence allowed the application and directed the release of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.25,86,115.45 with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nehemiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I] AT HYDERABAD DATED THiS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 352 OF 2026

¶4

M/s. Kotak lvlahindra Bank Ltd., Having its Office at H.No.63-1109/1 2nd Floor, Navabharath Chambers Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad - 500082, Telangana. Rep. by its Legal Manager. .....Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

lvlr.MNNNehemiah Flat 301, I V Enclave Plot No.10, 11 Gajularamaram, Near PBR Garden Hyd era bad- 5 000 5 5, Telangana, India.

¶7

...... Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Srihari Bathina Defendants : Ex-parte

¶9

:: 9-LLL& ::

¶10

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.25,86,115.45ps towards Loan A/c.No. SPLN 90778298 from the defendant with future interest @11.75olo^p.a. along with @2olo^p.m. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶11

Summon served on sole defendant and was set exparte^on 22.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶12

, S.r,n_-< / r'{^.S !.!,^. '.

¶13

OA.No.352l2026

¶14

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Roop Kishore Patel, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.8.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.8 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.35212026 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.25,86,115.45ps towards Loan A/c.No. SPLN 90778298 with future interest @11.75olo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

ii) the applica nt bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶23

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶24

Ow,*'

¶25

OA.No.352/2026

¶26

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

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day ofJune,2026).

¶29

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Nehemiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Nehemiah

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.

Bank of Baroda versus varikuppala prasad