Allowed

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Mr. M. Venkateswar Rao

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/62/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited for recovery of a principal sum with future interest and costs against defendant Surendra Kumar, directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 2,95,94,763.11 with future interest at 12.25% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr. M. Venkateswar Rao — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 62 OF 2025

¶6

TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED, Door No.19-4-121-14D, STV Nagar, Air Bye Pass Road, Tirupati 517 501, Represented by its authorized^person And power of attorney holder and Branch Head.

¶7

...Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. M. Venkateswar Rao S/o Mr. M. Veeriah, Male, aged about 59 years, Sole Proprietor of M/s Lakshmi Aluminium Industries, Plot No S8 Part, 296/LB IDA, Tirupathi to Srikalahasthi^Road, Srikalahasthi Pipes, Rachagunneri,

¶10

Tirupathi District 5L7 641

¶11

Smt. T. Satyavathi w/o Mr. M. Venkateswar^Rao, Female, aged about 54^years, resident of Flat No.104, 1 Floor, Green Park Apartments, Block VI, 14-3-306/305, D.R Mahal^Road, Tirupati 517501.

¶12

...Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant :^{Mr. K. RaghavendraRao}

¶14

Counsel for the Defendants :^Ex-parte

¶15

:: Q-B-Q-fL::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.2,95,94,763.11^{ps with fgture interest @ L2'25o/o} .lN./.,r.r}

¶17

)b,

¶18

oA.NO.62 /2025

¶19

p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation and, in default, sale of OA schedule moveable and immoveable assets/ properties.

¶20

Though the Defendants appeared through Mr. T. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel, they failed to file written statement and adduce evidence despite ample opportunities, whereupon they were set ex parte on 79.02.2026.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Ankusham Vasu, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 30 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.30.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA moveable and i m movea b le assets/ p ro perties?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.30 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Originat Application No.6212025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

ffi"rf

¶28

oA.NO.52 /202s

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 2,95,94,763.11 ps with future interest @ 12.25o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of Schedule-A to D of immoveable properties and hypothecation of Schedule E 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 accou nts;

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th Day of February, 2026)

¶37

OW*'u (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Mr. M. Venkateswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Mr. M. Venkateswar Rao

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

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles

State Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Bharath Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

M/S. State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Subrahmanya Jewellers (Borrower)