Allowed

Bank of India v. Mr. Channaram G Sunny Venkatesh

DRT7 Jan 2026OA/936/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed by Bank of India, the Tribunal allowed the claim for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 36,44,310/- along with interest and costs, holding the defendant liable as the defendant remained ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 36,44,310/- with interest and costs; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties.

Bank of India versus Mr. Channaram G Sunny Venkatesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRiBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM,, L.LB.^{(HONS.),N4.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICAT]ON NO: 936 OF 2025

¶4

Bank of India., Attapur Branch, 4-A-738 / 7 / A Ground Floor, Below Germanten^Hospital Pillar No.150, Attapur, Hyderabad-500048. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Channaram G Sunny Venkatesh S/o. Sri Golla venkatesh,^{Aged about} 25 Years, Occ: Business,^{R/o.FIat No.308} B Block, Vishnu Vistara^APartments Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081.

¶8

...Defendant

¶9

: Mr. B. Ravindra Reddy Counsel for the Applicant Defendant : Ex-pa rte

¶10

:: 9-L9_L&^::

¶11

The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.36,44,310/-^{towardsLoan A/c No 867860510000291} from the defendant^{with future interest @8 2590p awith} monthly rests from^{the date of applicationtill the date of} realizatlon along^{with costs and in default for sale of} hyPothecated^vehicle

¶12

Summon sent^{to soledefendantreturnedwith endorsement} unclaimed hence,^{deemedto be servedand was set ex-parteon} 06.01.2026^{as called absent and no representation' 1:l:-i ri}

¶13

¶14

oa.No.936/2025

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined T. Jagannadham, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 17 documents through him as Ex.A.l to Ex.A.17.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arjses for conslderation is:_

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.17 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the present Originat Application No.936/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.36,44,310/_ towards Loan A/c. No.867860510000291 with future interest @g.25olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

ii) the OA ctaim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the

¶23

oA.NO.93512025

¶24

applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶25

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

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

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

¶28

9 Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

10 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 07th DarT of January, 2026l,.

¶30

ffirls+ ESH'fi/AR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. Mr. Channaram G Sunny Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mr. Channaram G Sunny Venkatesh

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sahastra Agro Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Prasanna Kumar

Bank of Baroda versus Praveen Kumar

Union Bank of India versus Sri Lakshmi Narsimha Foods and Masalas

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Jiva Steels Pvt.Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Srivas Digital Flex Printing, Rep by Its Proprietor