Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Sri Maheeja Constructions

DRT2 Sept 2026OA/509/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 509/2026 filed by Karnataka Bank Limited. The court held respondents jointly and severally liable for the recovered sum with future interest and costs, ordering issuance of a Recovery Certificate and leaving the claim secured by mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,84,00,441.98/- with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgage; Recovery Certificate issued.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri Maheeja Constructions — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 509 OF 2026

¶4

Karnataka Bank Limited., Branch Office at Banajara Hills Branch Plot No. 50, 1st Floor, Srinagar Colony Banjara Hills, Road No.3, Hyderabad-500073 Tela nga na. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sri Maheeja Constructions., A Partnership Firm Having its Office Presently at Ground Floor, 1/126 Main Road, Tirumandyam, Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh - 517551.

¶8

Having Business Office also at:H.No.8-3-191/330, 62lD, Vengala Rao Nagar, Hyderabad - 500038.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Plot No.37 & 38, Vijayadurga Residency Flat No.501, Siddarth Nagar, Hyderabad-500038. Represented by its Partner Smt. Haritha^M w/o. Amareswara Reddy.

¶11

Sri Amareswara Reddy M, S/o.^Rosi Reddy M, Occ: Business as Partner of Sri Maheeja Constructions., Residing at Plot No.37 & 38, Vijayadurga Residency Flat No.501, Siddarth Nagar, Hyderabad-500008.

¶12

Smt. Haritha M, Wo. Sri Amareswara Reddy M, Occ: Business as Partner of Sri Maheeja Constructions., Residing at Plot No.37 & 38, Vijayadurga Residency Flat No.501, Siddarth Nagar, Hyderibad-5008Q8.

/f'won

oA.NO.509/2025

Sri Surya Prakash Reddy Mandyam S/o. Sri Amareswar Reddy, Service Resident of Plot No.37 & 38, Flat No. 501 Vijaya Durga Residency, Siddartha Nagar Road No.3, Sanjeevre, Hyderabad-500008.

¶17

... Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant

¶19

: Mr. N. Meher Prasad

Defenda nts

: Ex-parte

::^qLLE& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.3,84,0O,442/- i.e., a sum of Rs.3,15,31,905.32ps and Rs.68,68,536.66ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @12.03olo & 74.70o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶24

Summons served on D1 to 4 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 01.09.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶25

The Applicant Bank examined Venkata Subrahmanyam Mahankali, Legal t4anager, as AW-1 and marked 26 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.26.

¶26

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

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against

¶29

oA.NO.s09/2026

¶30

¶31

the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to 4.26 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.

¶33

In the result, the^present Original Application No.509/2026^is allowed as under:^-

¶34

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a^total sum of Rs.3,84,00,441.98Ps i.e.,^the defendants 1 to 3^jointly and^severallyare liable to pay a sum of^{Rs.3,15,31,905.32ps} and the defendants 2 to 4 iointly^and severally are liable to^pay a^sumof Rs.68,68,536.66ps; with^{futureinterest} @9.96%^{p.a. simple from the date of} application till the date^{of realization;}

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

oA.NO.5(x)/2026

¶38

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

¶39

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

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 02"d Day ofSeptembet 2026).

¶43

fu^,*\ KOTHE)

¶44

(MIVIESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

oA s09/26

¶46

31.08.2026 Counsel for applicant filed PP. PP filed for Dl to 4, called absent, no representation, call on 01.09.2026.

¶47

¶48

01.09.2026

¶49

No representation for applicant.^{PP filed for D1 to 4, called} absent, no representation^{and set exparte'A1 to 26 already} marked and reported^{no furtherAE. For exparte arguments,} call on 02.09.2026.

. ."

P.O.

02.09.2026

Sri N Meher Prasad counsel for applicant submitted exparte arguments. Orders will be^passed during course.

¶54

¶55

02.09.2026

¶56

Orders Pronounced, vide separate sheets.

¶57

In the result OA.No.509/2026 is allowed with costs.^Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶58

P.O.

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Sri Maheeja Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Sri Maheeja Constructions

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

Hdfc Bank versus Narayana Reddy

Hdfc Bank versus Naskon Associates

Union Bank of India versus Maneesha Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ms Manikanta Agencies

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Sivarama Krishna Matta

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Mahalakshmi Enterprises.