Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty

DRT7 Jul 2026OA/522/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by the Bank of Maharashtra. The defendants, who remained ex-parte, were held jointly and severally liable to pay the recovery claim amount with future interest and costs. A recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 1,04,91,550.25 with future interest and costs; recovery certificate issued; OA claim secured by mortgage.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 522 oF 2026

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra., Safilguda Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. .....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty S/o. Sunku Chengaih Chetty, Age 34 Occ: Business,^plot No.41l8, High Tension Line, Chakripuram, Kushaiguda Medchal tvlatkajgiri District - 50006), TG.

¶7

Charan's Raymond Tailors & Textiles., Rep by its^proprietor, Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty, S/o. Sunku Chengaih Chetty Age 34, Occ: Business,^ptot No.41l8, High Tension Line, Chakripuram, Kushaiguda Medchat Matkajgiri District _ 500062, TG.

¶8

...Defendants

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,04,91,550.25ps from the defendants joinuy and severally with future interest @12.05o/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property. oY,.#

¶14

oA.NO.s22l2025

¶15

¶16

Summons served^{on Dl and 2' They were set exparteon} 06.07.2026^{as called absentand no representation'}

¶17

The Applicant^{Bank examinedPamu Suresh, Legal Manager'as} AW-1 and^{marked 21 documents through him as Ex A l to Ex'} A.21.

¶18

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the Applicant Bank' Perusedthe} material Placed^{on record.}

¶19

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-}

¶20

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the ctaim made in the^{OA against} the Defendants and^{OA schedule} property?

¶21

As stated supra, the^{Defendants remained ex-parteThe} Evidence Affidavit^{coupled with the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to A.21^{markedon behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim^{of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendants are jointly and severallyliable} to^pay the OA claim to the^{Applicant Bank with future interest} and costs.

¶22

In the result, the^present original^{ApPllcation No.52212026is} allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the Applicant^Bank a^{sum of} Rs.1,04,91,550.25ps with future^interest @8.90%^p.a. simPle^from the^{date of} application till the date of rcalization; (Lyr/,),L[

oA.NO.522/2026

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;

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, si8ned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the OTth Day ofJuly,2026).

¶33

/flv,,n,-. ^., ,*#frff-;',,I PRESID]NG OFFICER

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty

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

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav and Others versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri. Madduri Sreenivas

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri Keshava Chary Venjarapu

State Bank of India versus M/s. Nani Mini Lorry Transport.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praful Kundik Navghare

Pallem Krishna versus State Bank of India