Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sreekanta Reddy Chamala

DRT8 Apr 2026OA/940/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of dues from a defendant who appeared ex-parte, the Presiding Officer found the evidence sufficient and allowed the application, directing the payment of principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,75,725.92 plus future interest and costs; issuance of Recovery Certificate; permission to enforce against properties.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sreekanta Reddy Chamala — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OBTH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 940 OF 2025

¶4

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., H.No.63-1 109 / I, znd Floor, Navabharath Chambers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad - 500082, Telangana. Rep. by its Authorised Slgnatory.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Sreekanta Reddy Chamala S/o, Ramanjaneya Reddy Chamala H.No.554, Road No.54, BHEL Cyber Colony Osman Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-502300.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Mr. Sreekanta Reddy Chamala H.No.B1-62, HUDA Colony, Chandanagar Hyderabad - 500050.

¶10

......Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Srihari Bathina Defendants : Ex-parteEx-parte

¶12

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶13

:: ORDER ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.20,75,725.92ps towards Loan A/c. No. SPLN-80980550 |PLSC240|24L50646O74O from the defendant with future interest @10.75olo^p.a. along with interest @2olo p.m. with monthly rests from the date of application till tb€. date of realisation alonq with costs. /}fus

¶15

oA.No.940/202s

¶16

¶17

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 06.03.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Roopkishore, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 05 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.5 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.

¶23

In the result, the present original Application No.940/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.20,75,725.92ps towards Loan A/c. No. SPLN8098055 0/PL5C240L241506460740 with future interest @10.75o/o^p.a. simple, frqm the date of application till the date of realiza tion; U'W(x*

¶25

OA.No.940/2025

¶26

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

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of April,2026l.

¶31

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sreekanta Reddy Chamala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sreekanta Reddy Chamala

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

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Falcon Facilities India Private Limited.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kasipogula Suresh

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Suryadevara Kranthi Kumar

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Golden Tulip Implex India Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S. Madina Fruit Co.

Mr.M.Ganesh versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited