Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/891/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of a debt. The court held defendants liable to pay the principal sum with future interest and costs, and permitted action against hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants liable to pay Rs. 26,74,827.35 plus future interest; bank entitled to sell hypothecated assets and proceed against properties for realization.

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 891 OF 2025

¶4

Indian Bank

¶5

Branch at 201918, Co-Operative Nagar, Near Nehuru Park, Kadapa, AP-516001.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

lvl/s. Ganapathl Mobile Marketing Rep. by its Sole Proprietor lvlr. Lomada Ga na path i, 1/2690, Housing Board Colony, Kada pa, YSR District, Andhra Pradesh-51601.

¶9

Mr. Lomada Ga na pathi

¶10

S/o, Lamda Pakkeera ppa, 1/ 1583, Ka ndipalem, Yerram ukkapalli, Kadapa, YSR Dlstrict, Andhra Pradesh-516001. ... Defendants.

¶11

: Ivlr. Hemanth Kumar Vemuri Counsel for the Applicant Defendants : Ex-parte

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.26,74 ,827 .35Ps from thq- defendarlts with future //l*,_2,,y>\ /^t ./ '^\r: " t-.,

¶13

oA.NO.89u202s

¶14

interest @10.85o/o p.a. for loan account 7660889723 along with penal interest @2% p.a. from 05.08.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of Hypothecated assets.

¶15

Publication was filed for D1 and D2. They were set exparte on 23.02.2026 as called absent no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Ayush Kumar, Branch manager, as AW-1 and marked 5 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶17

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

¶18

q The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

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

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05 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.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.B91/2025 is allowed as under: ,/n J/^Kut'u

¶22

oA.NO.891/202s

¶23

¶24

i) The Defendants are liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 26,74,827.35ps with future interest @11.85o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecated 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;

¶26

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

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

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 24th Day of february, 20261.

¶31

PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Bank v. M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/s. Hydropneum Hydraulik India Private Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs. Kunreddy Nagamani

Sln Projects Pvt. Ltd. M Obilesh M Anuradha M Venkateshwarlu Sln Projects versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Kovvuri Nagesh Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/s. Chand Agencies

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/s. Chand Marketing