Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Joe Varghese Padasssari

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/830/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery. The defendants were ex-parte. The court held them jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with future interest and costs. The claim secured by mortgage is directed to be realized.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 55,04,809.79 plus future interest at 10.25% p.a.; claim secured by mortgage to be realized; bank entitled to costs and recovery certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Joe Varghese Padasssari — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 830 OF 2025

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra., Balapur Branch, B-7 /L/A, Plot No.1 Survey No.59, Sainagar Colony, Near By Chavan Hospital, Balapur, Rangareddy Telangana - 500005.

¶6

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Joe Varghese Padasssari S/o. P J Vargheses, Villa No.14lC Nakshtra Colony, BalaPur Rangareddy District - 500005.

¶10

Mrs. Toony Mathew, W/o.Mr. loe Varghese, Villa No. 14lC Nakshtra Colony, BalaPur Rangareddy District - 500005. ..Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the^APPlicant

¶12

: Mr. R. Kasi Viswanadham

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER^::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present oA for the recoverya total} sum of^{Rs.55,04,809.79ps i'€', a sum of Rs'20'27'080'40ps} towards^{Housing Loan A/c'No'60L2834t462 and a sum of} Rs.34,77,72g.39ps^{towards Top upHousing Loan}

¶17

A/c.No.6036493053lfromthedefendantsjointlyandseverally fromthedateofapplicationtillthedateofrealizationalong propertv'

¶18

with losts^{and in default for sale} "t ffi"

¶19

oA.NO.830/2025

¶20

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte 04.12.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined E P Saravana Priya, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.19.

¶22

Applicant right of arguments is forfeited vide docket order dated 04.02.2026 for no representation. Perused the material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶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.19 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.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.830/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.55,04,g09.79ps i.e., a sum of Rs.20,27,0g0.40ps towards,,,Housing Loan bW"u

¶28

oA.NO.830/202s

¶29

¶30

A/c.No.6012834L462 and a sum of Rs.34,77,729.39ps towards Top up Housing Loan A/c,No.60364930581; with future interest @10.25olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶32

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed aoainst the Derson and^prooerties of rrlfPrAsr^(ot ttl ,/ !/^ n a srmnle irrlm tria alata defendants for realization of its dues;

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

B, The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this^Order.

¶35

q Issue Recovery Certificate^{according ly.}

¶36

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 04rh Day^{of February, 2026).}

¶37

,^{: .,..}

¶38

-l , (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

,..,- r,,.J -- --^t

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Joe Varghese Padasssari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Joe Varghese Padasssari

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

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd. versus T. Sudhakar Goud

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sigma Containers.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Hundred Lab Services.

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Nagendra Ravi Kumar Vithanala

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Gajjela Vasantha

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Shaik Madeena Irshad