Allowed

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Muppala Sudha Rani

DRT23 Jul 2026OA/602/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Federal Bank Ltd. against respondents for recovery of Rs.32,07,269/- with interest, costs, and realization of hypothecated vehicle after respondents remained ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.32,07,269/- with future interest and costs; authorization to sell hypothecated vehicle; issues recovery certificate.

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Muppala Sudha Rani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM,, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFlCER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 602 OF 2026

¶4

The Federal Bank Ltd., Punjagutta Branch, Hydera bad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

l.4rs. Muppala Sudha Rani Wo.^N4r.14uppala Venkatehwara Rao Aged 58 Years, Female, R/o. P.No.73P FF Rock View N4ansion, Beverly Hill Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081.

¶8

Mr. Muppala Venkatehwara Rao S/o. Sri. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 61 Years Male, R/o. P.No.73P, FF Rock View Mansion Beverly Hill, I4adhapur, Hyderabad - 500081.

¶9

. .. Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Trivikram Chitturu Defendants : Ex-parte :: ORDER ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.32,07,269/- from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @9.7590 p.a. with monthly rests along with penal interest @4% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along..with costs and in default for sale ot hypothecated vehicte.^/1 ..(tU

¶12

oA.NO.602/2025

¶13

¶14

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 22.07.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined T Neeha Supraja, Legal l4anager, as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06.

¶16

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. 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 Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to 4.06 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.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.602l2OZ6 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.32,07,269/- with future interest @9.75olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of reatization; OW*U

¶22

oA.NO.602/2026

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

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 23'd Day of July, 2026). 6x,,"" lnffiesnwaR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Muppala Sudha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Muppala Sudha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Palem Anil Kumar

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Likith Projects Private Limited

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Kethavath Limbya

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Gouni Siva Laxmi

State Bank of India versus Smt. Pingula Kumari

Surendar Adapa versus Authum investment and infrastructure limited