Allowed

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Sailesh Kumar Gujjar

DRT24 Mar 2026TA/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a Transfer Application filed by Asset Reconstruction Company Limited against two defendants. The Tribunal held the defendants liable to pay the claimed sum with future interest and costs, secured by mortgage properties, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Declarations on joint and several liability, payment of sum with interest, enforcement over mortgage properties, costs, and issue of Recovery Certificate directed.

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Sailesh Kumar… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 24thDAYOF MARCH,2026}

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TRANSFER APPLICATION^{NO: 04 OF 2024}

¶6

lvl/s. Asset Reconstruction^{Company Limited} 207, Bhuvana^{Towers, S O Road,} SecunOe.aOaO;^{Rep by its AuthorizedOfficer}

¶7

""^Applicant'

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sailesh Kumar^Gujjar

¶10

S/o. late.^{G NagenderRao(HUF Karta)}

¶11

R/o.4-L-42,^{43 & 45/A,}

¶12

Subash Road,^{Old Bhoiguda,}

¶13

Secunderabad-^{5Ooo03,TelanganaState}

¶14

Nandini Gujjar

¶15

W/o Sailesh^{Kumar Guijar}

¶16

R/o.4-r-42,^{43 e.45lA,}

¶17

Subash Road,^{Old Bhoiguda,} "^Derendants ;;;;il";;b;i,-^{soooo3;relansana state}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Applicant} : Dr' Shaik^Faheemullah

¶19

Counsel for^the Defendants^{: Ex-parte}

¶20

:: qLLLL^::

¶21

The^{Applicant filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum} of Rs.2,18,32,913.96ps^{from the defendants jointlyand} severally with^{future interest @13'75%p'a' from the date of} application till^{the date of realizationalong with costsand'in} defautt, sale^{of oA schedule} orooettieslQ{r#

¶22

TA.NO.04/2024

¶23

Summon served on Defendants 1 & 2 through paper publication and were set ex-parte on 76.07.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined lvlr. Ganta Sreera m, Ch^jef Manager, as AW-1 and marked 17 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17.

¶25

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

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is: _

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the TA against the Defendants and TA schedule properties?

¶28

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

¶29

In the result, the present Transfer Application No.04/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.2,18,32,913.96ps with future interest @11.500/o p.a. simple from the date of apptication till the date of reatizationelg.l,\7r*

¶31

¶32

TA.NO.04/2024

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs'}

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

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^March, 2026). .'.)i,- . - ^. '1.' Y [1n\ / r\f\

¶39

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Sailesh Kumar Gujjar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Sailesh Kumar Gujjar

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs. Daravat Sali

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Capital Protection Private Limited.