Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Kandala Srinivas Reddy

DRT29 Dec 2023OA/791/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery from three joint account holders who were non-appearant. The Tribunal held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding dues, less the value of closed accounts, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 39,43,220.28 with interest; OA claim secured by hypothecation; bank entitled to proceed against assets/person; cost order to be filed; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Kandala Srinivas Reddy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TR]BUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO, 791 OF 2022

¶4

H DFC Bank Ltd. Branch oFfice 1- 10-60/3, 3'd floor, Suryodaya Complex, Opp: Shoppers Stop,Begumpet, Secunderabad Mandal, Secundera bad District- 5 00016, Telangana State, Rep by its Legal Ma nagaer.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kandala Srinivas Reddy, s/o. sathi Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Buslness, H.No.8-7-92/7071A/L, Anupama Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hastinapuram North, LB Nagar, Near Santoshi Mata Temple, Hyderabad, Telangana-500079

¶8

Also at: Kandala Srinivas Reddy, s/o. sathi Reddy Aged 49 years, Occ: Business Plot No.1ElP zElP &3, Flat No.301, Sri Santosh Heights Apts, Yellareddy Colony, Hayath Nagar,Near Bommalagudi, Hyderabad, Tela nga na-501505. ..:4 ru* -.- ^ A^{-"'>^>)}

¶9

oa.79712022

¶10

Raja Ravinder Reddy Butreddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, Aged 47^yeats, Occ:Business, H. No:1-7- 18/8, Jsn colony, Street No.8, Habisg uda, Hyderabad, Tela ng a na^- 50000 7

¶11

lvlalla Reddy Pagailla, S/o. Pandu Reddy Pagailla Aged : 14ajor, Occ: Business H. No.4-9-789lP20, Plot No:20, Yella Reddy Colony, Road No:10, Rangareddy, Telanga na-501505. ........ Defenda nts. Counsel for the Applicant N4.V.KINI Defendants Exparte.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of^a total sum of Rs.39,43,220.28ps^jointly and severally from^the Defendants 1to 3 with interest @24olo^p.a. from the date^of applicatlon till the date of realisatlon along with costs andⁱⁿ default for sale of OA schedule hypothecated vehicles.

¶14

Summon served on D1 to 3 through^{paper publication.} They^were set ex-parte on 16.05.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Nikhila Yedla, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10. It is submitted that after filing of OA, defendants closed account No. 82600367 and 82600375. Accordingly the ,21.w,'^.'b

\ i/_/^,,/ -/^^d.F

oa.79112022

outstanding dues staud revised to Rs.23,49,673.11ps as on 16. 1 1.2023.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

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

¶23

As stated supra, defendants 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A1 to A.10 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, less Rs.7,96,304.52ps towards accounts closed during pendency of OA proceedings.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.797/2022 is allowed as under:^-

¶25

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.39,43,220,28ps with future interest @8.5%p.a.^simple from the date of application till the date of realization, less Rs.7,96,304.52ps towards closed accounts;

)Wo

()

oa.79u2022

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the partles concerned. (Diatated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29rh day of December, 2023).

¶36

,fu,n (RMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Kandala Srinivas Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Kandala Srinivas Reddy

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 Limited versus M/S. Gokul Cement Agencies

Canara Bank versus Sri. Pattada Kambanna

Joyti Pradeep Somaiya versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S S K Decor

Mr Ashok Rao versus Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.

Mr Ashok Rao versus Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.