Allowed

Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. M/s Pragati Marbles

DRT25 Feb 2026OA/668/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of an ex-parte Original Application filed by Karnataka Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues against a partnership firm and its partners. The claim against Property Item No.3 was stayed pending a separate challenge, while the balance claim was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Condemnation of respondents jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1,89,85,715.89 with future interest at 10.10% p.a. and costs; stay on recovery from Item No.3 property pending special appeal.

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

"oRIGntlAL"

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 668 OF 2025

¶5

KARNATAKA BANK LTD. D.No. 16-1 1-740/817 A, CMR Soni Arcade, Near Metro Pillar No. A 1519, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 560060

¶6

..... .Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s PMGATI MARBLES A Paftnership Firm rep by its Partners Ashish Kumar Patra and Amit Kumar Patra R/o H.No.3-8-30/A, Plot No.25, Road No.2, High Way Colony, Opp: Chintalkunta, Old Check Post, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad-500074

¶9

Sri. ASHISH KUMAR PATM

¶10

S/o. Vijaya Ram Patra, aged about 49 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-8-30/A, Plot No.25, Road No.2, High Way Colony, Opp: Chintalkunta, Old Check Post, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad-500 074

¶11

Sri. AMIT KUMAR PATM

¶12

S/o. Vijaya Ram Patra, aged about 45 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-8-30/A, Plot No.25, Road No.2, High Way Colony, Opp: Chintalkunta, Old Check Post, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad-500 074

¶13

SMt. ANUPUPAMA MAHAPATRO

¶14

W/o. Srinivasa Mahapatra, aged about 47 yearc Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.213, Sri Rama Nilayayam, Srinivasa Nagar, Vijayanagaram, Andhra Pradesh-535002

¶15

firy;"* "'Derendants

¶16

oA.NO.668/202s

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant

¶18

: Mr. N. Rama Rao

¶19

Counsel for the Defendants

¶20

: Ex-parte

¶21

:: ORDER ::

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. L,89,85,715.89^ps i.e., sum of Rs. L,34,4L,821.02 ps towards Overdraft Facility with future interest @ 15.10^o/o F.o.,^{sum of Rs. t7,73,245.54 ps towards DPN Loan Facility} with future interest @ 15.10^o/o p.d., sum of Rs. 20,06,425.3L ps towards Working Capital TL-GECL with future interest @ 13.96^o/o p.d and sum of Rs. L7,64,224.02 ps towards Vehicle Loan Facility with future interest @ 14.30^o/o p.ts., with monthly rests from 16.06.2025 till the date of realisation and, in default, sale of OA mortgaged propefties.

¶23

Vide the Original Application; learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the property listed as Item No.3 in the OA Schedule was auctioned under the SARFAESI Act and the same is under challenge in SA No.105/2023. Accordingly, the sale proceeds are liable to be adjusted against the claim pertaining to the respective account; and order directing Defendants Nos.1 to 4^jointly and severally to pay the balance OA claim qua OA Schedule Items Nos.1 & 2 may be passed, subject to the outcome of the SA.

¶24

Summons served on Defendant Nos.1 to 3 returned unclaimed, while Defendant No.4 was served through newspaper publication. All Defendants were set ex pafte on 14.10.2025 as carled absent and no representation7fl,,,fft*

¶25

oA.NO.668/202s

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. V. Pavan Kumar Reddy, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 57 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.57.

¶27

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

¶28

5, The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶29

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA mortgage Properties?

¶30

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A,57 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.

¶31

In the result, the^present Original Application No.668/2025 is allowed as under:^-

¶32

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 1,89,85,715.89 ps with future interest @ 10.10o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of item no.1 to 3 of^properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant is entitled to^proceed against the frr"x

¶34

oA.NO.668/2025

¶35

same to realise its debts under respective accounts. However, the^proceedings against the Item no.3^property shall be subject to the outcome of SA No. 105 of 2A23;

¶36

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

¶37

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25'n Day of February,2026)

¶42

)h PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. M/s Pragati Marbles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. M/s Pragati Marbles

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

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Smt Akula VIijay Bhaskar and Another versus Bank of Maharashtra

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Global Impех

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla