Allowed

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., v. Mr. P. Muni Goverdhan

DRT14 Jul 2026OA/406/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of Rs.76,03,145.60 along with future interest and costs from the defendants, who appeared ex-parte, securing the claim via mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.76,03,145.60 with future interest @9.15% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and other assets for realization of dues

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., versus Mr. P. Muni Goverdhan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 406 OF 2026

¶5

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Puttur Branch, D.No.6-70, Eswaragudi street, Puttur chittur District - 517583. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

. ....Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. P. Muni Goverdhan, S/o.p. Venkara Ratham, D.No. 74-62/3, 14th Ward Srinivasanagar Extension. puttur Chittoor_517581.

¶9

Mt. P. Hemanth Kumar, S/o.p.Venkara Ratham, D.No. 74-62/3, 14th ward Srinivasanagar Extension, puttur Chittoor-5175g1.

¶10

Smt. P. Munikanta, W/o.p.Venkara Ratham, D.No. 74-62/3, 14th Ward Srinivasanagar Extension, puttur Chittoor_5175g1.

¶11

. .. Defendants

¶12

Cou nsel for the Applicant 14 r. G. Bhanu tYurthy

Defendants

Ex-parte

:: oRDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.76,03,145.60ps as on 13.03.2026 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @9.15yo p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along wjfh costs and in default for sale of OA sc h ed u I e p r o p e rti es. 0,k:\1,\

¶17

oa.No.406/2026

¶18

¶19

Summons served on D1 and 2, whereas summons served on D3 through paper pu blication. They were set ex-parte on 13.07 -2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined S Prabhu Kumar, Area Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶21

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

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

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

¶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.09 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank cllnches 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.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.406/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are joinly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.76,03,145.60ps with future interest @9.15olo p.a. simple from the date of

¶27

¶28

oA.NO.406/2026

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within^{2 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 14th Day of July, 2026).

¶34

(RAIVTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., v. Mr. P. Muni Goverdhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., v. Mr. P. Muni Goverdhan

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

Raj Mangal Singh versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Smt K Anitha and Another versus Mahaveer Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

P Shamsheer Khan versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bhavani Traders.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Kalyani Restaurant and Bar

Union Bank of India versus M/S Sameer Motors