Allowed

Indusind Bank Limited v. M/s. Bigleap Technologies & Solutions Private Limited

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/612/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an Original Application filed by Induslnd Bank Limited for recovery of a principal sum of Rs. 3,39,60,802.68 along with future interest. The claims were established through an evidence affidavit as the defendants appeared ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,39,60,802.68 with future interest; Recovery Certificate issued;

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/s. Bigleap Technologies & Solutions Private Limited — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶2

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

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 612 OF 2024

¶5

M/s. Induslnd Bank Limited Secunderabad Branch,

¶6

#t-L0-72, 3rd Floor, Ashoka Janardhan Chambers, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

¶7

......Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Bigleap Technologies & Solutions Private Limited Plot No. 2LO,lI Floor, 91, Bhuvana Towers,

¶10

S.D. Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad 500 003. Rep. by its Director Mr. Vinay Kotra

¶11

Mr. Vinay Kotra, S/o. Sri Kotra Ram Rao Aged: Major, R/o. Flat No. 1003, Block A, Jalavayu Towers, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 500 080.

¶12

Mr. James Johnson, S/o. Sri Sunder Rao Aged: Major, R/o. H. No. 18-67 Gopal Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad 500047.

¶13

Mr. Thummala Manoj Yadav, S/o. Sri T Ashok Yadav Aged: Major, R/o. P. No. 35, Chinna Thokatta Hanuman Nagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad 500 011.

¶14

Mr. Sainath Goud Malkapuram, S/o. Sri M Vasudev Goud Aged: Major, R/o. H. No. 6-1-122, Ambika Colony, Near Hanuman Temple, Balanagar, Hyderabad 500 042.

¶15

Mrs. Ishrat Begum, Wo. James Johnson Aged: Major, R/o. 18-507/A, 1st Floor, Mal likarjuna Nagar, Mal kajgi ri, Telan^{gana^} 500 047.

¶16

"'Derendants O%,@

¶17

oA.NO.612l2024

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant

¶19

Mr. Maanam Sailaja

¶20

Counsel for the Defendants

¶21

Ex-parte

¶22

:: ORDER ::

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 3,39,60,802.68 ps with future interest @ 10.80o/o p.a. with monthly rests from L5.10.2A24 till the date of realisation and, in default, sale of OA schedule moveable and immoveable assets/ property.

¶24

Summon served on defendants and were set ex-parte on 18.06.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶25

The Applicant Bank examined Ms. G. V. L Prasanna, Asst. Vice President, as AW-1 and marked 21 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21.

¶26

Heard the ex-parte argument from the Ld. Counsel of the applicant. Perused the material placed on record.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA moveable and im moveable assets/ propefty?

¶29

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-pafte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.21 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Batrk against the Defendants. Ow,*

¶30

oA.NO.61212024

¶31

Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.6l2/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants are jolntly and severally liable to^pay to the Appllcant Bank a sum of Rs. 3,39,60,802.68 ps with future interest @ 10.80% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of Schedule-I immoveable property and hypothecation of Schedule II assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debts under respective accounts;

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs,

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th Day of February, 2026)

¶41

ow'-"u

¶42

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indusind Bank Limited v. M/s. Bigleap Technologies & Solutions Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Limited v. M/s. Bigleap Technologies & Solutions Private Limited

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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Veldi Ramesh Fruits Merchants.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Vijaya Surya Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajmeera Suguna

Sree Parmeswara Co. and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Bharat Iti Mr S Rajashekar Reddy versus Wardhaman Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Vedighar Nagaraju