Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Bhuma Sandeep Kumar Reddy

DRT23 Aug 2024OA/214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Hyderabad, the Tribunal, on merits of ex-parte evidence, allowed the bank's OA for recovery of dues from five joint and several defendants secured by mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing OA; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,15,71,693.95 with future interest and costs; bank entitled to realize debt from mortgaged properties and other assets.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Bhuma Sandeep Kumar Reddy — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23Td DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAI.4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L,LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 214 OF 2023

¶4

HDFC BanK Ltd.,

¶5

Having its office at Bank House, # 6-3-246 & 6-3-244/A, 6th Ftoor, Roxana Palladium, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.... .Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr.Bhuma Sandeep Kumar Reddy, S/o.Bramhanandeeswara Reddy, Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. H. No.281766-A1, NGO's Colony, Main Road, Nandya l, Kurnool District - 518501.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Mr.Bhuma Sandeep Kumar Reddy, C/o. H. No.5- 16, O C Colony, Kotha pa lli Village, Dornipadu Mandal, Allagadda, Kurnool District - 518135.

¶11

Mr.Bhuma Bramhanandeeswara Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 59 Years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. H. No.281766-A1, NGO'S Colony, Main Road, Nandyal, Kurnool District - 518501.

Also at:-

fu,^

oA.NO.214l2023

Mr.Bhuma Sandeep Kumar^Reddy, C/o. H. No.5- 16, O C Colony, Kothapa lli Village, Dornipadu^Mandal, Allagadda, Kurnool^District -^518135.

¶16

Mrs.Bhuma Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo.Bramhanandeeswara^Reddy, Aged about 52 Years, Occ:^Housewife, R/o. H. No.281766-A1, NGO'S Colony, Main Road,^Nandyal, Kurnool District - 518501. Also at: - Mr.Bhuma Sandeep Kumar Reddy, C/o.H.No.5-16, O C Colony, Kothapalli Village, Dornipadu l.4anda^l, Allagadda, Kurnool District - 518135.

¶17

Mr.Bhuma Santhosh Kumar Reddy, S/o.Bramhanandeeswara^Reddy, Aged about 29 Years, Occ: Farmer, R/o.H. No.28l766-A1, NGO'S Colony, Main Road, Nandyal, Kurnool District - 518501.

¶18

Also at:Mr.Bhuma Santhosh Kumar Reddy, C/o.H.No.5-16, O C Colony, Kothapalli Village, Dornipadu Manda l, Allagadda, Kurnool District - 518135. 5. Mr.Ambati l,laheswara Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Aged about 57 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.1-42, P Nagireddypalli, Padakandla, Allagadda, Kurnool District - 518501. ... Defendants Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.M.Srinivas Reddy Defendants : Ex-parte OY**

oA.NO.274l2O23

:: qLLEB ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,15,71,693.95ps from the defendants joinuy and severally together with @ 11.02olo p.a. from 23.11.2022 (Cash Credit & DOD Facilities) the statement date to the date of Award/Decree and thereafter @ 180/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶23

Summons served on D1 to 5. They were set ex-parte on 27.O9.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined D.Suresh, Deputy Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11.

¶25

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. 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 schedule propefties?

¶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.11 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

$/rt-'r

oA.NO.214l2023

to^pay the OA claim to^{the Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶33

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.2l4/2023 is} allowed as under:^-

¶34

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the Applicant^{Bank a sum of} Rs.1,15,71,693.95ps with^{future interest@} ll.O2o/o p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of^realization;

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the^costs.

¶38

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to^file Cost^{Memowithin2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order^{to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me^{in the open courton} this the 23'd Day of August, 2024).

¶41

/fu;**n

¶42

1kt'r'resHwnR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Bhuma Sandeep Kumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Bhuma Sandeep Kumar 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Nandalal Kesar Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sunitkumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Suneha Haridas Gadpande

Mr Chandubhai Maganbhai Parmar versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Gaurav Traders

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S City Rugs India