Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Pulluri Swapna

DRT15 Nov 2023OA/568/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against three defendants ex-parte. The court held them jointly and severally liable to repay the debt with interest and granted recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 27,06,436.72 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and personal properties.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Pulluri Swapna — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KoTF ou.roro'j;Ft...?.,^{L.LB.(Hons.), M.A.}

¶2

Original Application No: 568 OF 2022

¶3

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

¶4

H,aving its office at # 1_10-60/3_ 4"'-Floor,.(44), Suryodaya Complex, 6e9umpet, Hyderabad_500016. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.^pulluri Swapna, D/o. Sai^prasad p.

¶8

Aged: 26 years, Occ: Busine<" H_ No. 3-1e, r4dthe(vt i;q;;pet(M), Nizamabad-503120.

¶9

2, Pulluri Saiprasad, S/o. Ramulu^pulluri,

¶10

Aged: 33^years, Occ: Business, H. No. 3-19, Mothe (V), Lingampet(M), Nizamabad-so3120.^-

¶11

3. Chakali Satyam,

¶12

S/o. Narasaih, Aged: 40 years, Occ: Business, 3-106/3, Mandalam Mothe, Mothe Lingampet, Nizambad-S03120

...Defendants

ryN,l"

oA.NO.558/2022

counsel for the Applicant

: Mr. M. P. Kashyap

Defendants

:Exparte

::^qLLEB::

The Applicant Bank fited the^{present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.27,06 ,436.72ps from the^{defendantsjointly and} severally with future^interest @^{249op.a. from the date of} application till the date of realization^{along withcostsand in} default for sale of OA hypothecated^vehicle

¶23

Summons served on Dl to^{D3. Theywere set exparte on} 27,O2,2O23 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined^{Yedla Nikhila,lYanager-Legal, as} AW-1 and marked 5 documents through her as^{Ex. A.1} to^Ex. A.5.

¶25

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank^{reportedorders may be} passed on records. Perused the material placed on record.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶27

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

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants 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 Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. /VW, ". /1/ '-r<,'*'^-

¶29

¶30

oA.NO.568/2022

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.568/2022 allowed as under: -

¶32

i) ttre Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.27,06,436.72ps with future interest @ 9.25o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecated vehicle described in the schedule annexed to OA and the applicant bank is entiHed to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶34

iiD the applicant bank is atso entiHed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

o Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned, (Dictated to the steno, corrected, sicned iro ,r" ,r; o"r.i r",";;";;rli:* "o^{,'"nouncedbvme in the open courr on}

¶39

,/ij,,tvtr9t-. ,, f^(/ '/te'rxr'^' 1Cfi(esnwnn xorne; PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Pulluri Swapna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Pulluri Swapna

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

Meghalaya Rural Bank versus Shri Christerfils Shira Cajee

Canara Bank versus M/S Kamla Enterprises and Others

Ms Munshi Ram Roop Lal versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Suryakant R Biradar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Avatar B Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Udupi Park