Allowed

The Axis Bank Ltd., v. Chinthala Shyamaiah

DRT24 Mar 2026OA/696/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a loan sum from the defaulting defendants, who remained absent. The court declared the claim, secured by vehiplotneation, admissible and mandated the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Permission to recover Rs. 65,96,560/- with interest, costs, and proceed against defendants' person/property and the hypothecated vehicle. Issue Recovery Certificate.

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Chinthala Shyamaiah — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24J11 DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.CoM., L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 696 OF 2025

¶5

The Axis Bank Ltd., Having it Office at 5-4-183/184, 3'd Floor R P Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chinthala Shyamaiah, S/o. Chinthala Venkaiah, Aged about 46 Years Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10¹²⁸ Chintha lon u^pa lly,^{Amarabad Mandal} Near Church, Mahabubnagar -^509201.

¶9

Chinthala Chandrakala,^{D/o. Laxmaiah} Aged about 44 Years,^{Occ: Home Maker} R/o. H.No.10 126, Chinthalonupally Amarabad Mandal^{Near Church} lvlahabubnagar - 509201.

¶10

... Defendants

¶11

: Mr' M. Srlnivas^Reddy Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-Parte

:: qLLL&^::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.65,96,560/-^{from the defendantsjointlyand} severally with future^{Interest @18Vop a' compoundedwith} monthly rests from^{13.06.2025till the date of realizationalong} with costs and^{in default for saleof hypolqecatedvehicle'}

¶16

OX"*'

¶17

oA.NO.696/202s

¶18

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on ' 24.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Syed Shafiuddin, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶20

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

¶21

The point that arises For consideration is:-

¶22

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

¶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.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.696/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are join y and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.65,96,560/- with future interest @13.60qo p.a. simple from the date of aoolication ti the date of reatization.gQ\r.s7i\

¶26

oA.NO.596/202s

¶27

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 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, si8ned and^pronounced by me in the open court^on this the 24rh Day of March, 2026).

¶33

. , \r*r _ . ,,, ).1. ']' .\ l1

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Axis Bank Ltd., v. Chinthala Shyamaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Axis Bank Ltd., v. Chinthala Shyamaiah

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited

Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Shailesh Kumar Gujjar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Capital Protection Private Limited.