Allowed

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Gayatri Karri

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/942/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

InOriginal Application No. 942 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal reversed an exparte decision dismissing the bank's recovery claim as the defendant did not appear. Finding the evidence affidavit and documents conclusive, the tribunal held the defendant liable to pay the claimed sum of Rs. 29,09,833.18.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is ordered to pay Rs. 29,09,833.18 with future interest at 12% p.a., and the application is directed to be executable as a recovery certificate.

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Ms. Gayatri Karri — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORiGINAL APPLICATION No: 942 OF 2025

¶4

M/s. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK Ltd., Having its office at H.No.63-11091t, 2nd Floor, Navabharath Chambers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082, Telangana Represented by its authorized signatory

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

MS. GAYATRI KARRI 6-223-1, Road No.9 Triveni Nagar Balapur X Roads Hyderabad - 500097 Telangana - India

¶8

ALSO AT: Ms, GAYATRI KARRI SEZ 203L, Madhava Reddy Colony Gachibowli, Telangana, 500032

¶9

ALSO AT:

¶10

Ms. GAYATRI KARRI H.No. 15-11, Behind Bishops House, Eluru, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh,534007

¶11

...Defendant

¶12

: Mr. Srihari Bathina Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Defendant , rx-Oartefur$

¶13

oA.NO.94212025

¶14

:: ORDER ::

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 29,09,833.18 ps with future interest @l2a/o^p.a. from the date of filling the application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶16

Summon served on Sole Defendant through paper publication and was set exparte on 09.L2.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Roopkishore Patel, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 6 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant reported order may be passed on record. Perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶20

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

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-pafte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.6 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.

¶22

In the result, the present Original

¶23

allowed as under: -

¶24

oA.NO.942l2025

¶25

i) The Sole Defendant is^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 29,09,833.18 ps with future interest @ 12olo

¶26

' p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

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

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the^partles concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th Day of February, 2026). ,.-)r

¶33

,.-)r / l//AJ,'7^-, )V,^s,-\L''\ + (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Gayatri Karri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Gayatri Karri

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

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles

State Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Bharath Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

M/S. State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Subrahmanya Jewellers (Borrower)