Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Ssp Water Supply

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/69/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application seeking recovery of Rs.60,29,453.25 plus interest and costs from defaulted borrowers, holding them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.60,29,453.25 with future interest at 9.5% p.a.; application secured by hypothecation; entitlement to proceed against assets and properties; costs awarded.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Ssp Water Supply — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 69 OF 2026

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Having its Branch Office ar 6-3-77O9/7/P/302 3d Floor, Jewel Pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. SSP Water Supply., Represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. lvl Swaroopa, Office at Plot No.54 Sy.No.34, Sriram Nagar Colony, Suraram Road, Gajularamaram, Hyderabad-500055.

¶9

Mrs. Mantri Swaroopa, Wo. lvl. Praveen Kumar, Aged about 45 Years Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.116, Star Llte Pavillon Apts, Ranga nagar, YMS Function Hall, Quthubullapu r Hyderabad - 500054.

¶10

Mr. Mantri Praveen Kumar S/o.14. Dha modhar, Aged about 51 Years Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.116, Star Lite Pavilion Apts, Ranga nagar, YMS Function Hall, Quthubullapu r Hydera bad - 500054.

¶11

... Defenda nts

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Defendants

¶13

: Mr. 14. Srinlvas Reddy 'e*'oarte1fulb

oA.NO.69/2026

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.60,29,453.25ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶18

Summons served on D1 through paper publication, whereas summons sent to D2 and 3 returned with endorsement refused hence, deemed to be served. They were set ex-parte on 27.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek P S, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.^perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration ls:-

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets ?

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.09 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. 4ry0\N!-\

¶24

oA.NO.59/2025

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.69/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.60,29,453.25ps with future interest @9.5olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets 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 entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

B. 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, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th Day of April, 2026).

¶33

/)ry,*x (kflesxwaR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Ssp Water Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Ssp Water Supply

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.

Karre Radha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Naresh Banothu

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Laxminarayana Narasimulu Palakurki

Union Bank of India versus Amma Petroleum Company.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Manopadu Swamy