Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

DRT11 Apr 2025OA/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an application filed by IDBI Bank Limited for recovery of dues. Addressing a dispute over interest rate switching mechanisms from BPLR to other benchmarks, the Tribunal allowed the application, determining that claimants must follow mutually agreed terms for switching. The bank was directed to claim interest at 9% while liability of legal heirs was restricted to their devol

What did the court decide?

D الاول to 7 are directed to pay Rs.1,49,50,228.80 with future interest at 9% p.a.; legal heirs liable only to the extent of their estate.

Idbi Bank versus Smt D Hymavathi Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 1TH DAY OF APRIL,2C-25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

oA.No. 10A/2022

¶5

IDBI Bank Limited,

¶6

Mahavir House, Basheerbagh Square, Hyderabad - 500 029. Rep. by its Asst. General Manager.

¶7

Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt D. Himavathi Reddy, W/o. late D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. H.No.84OlA, Road No.41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

¶10

Ms. D. Pravallika Reddy, D/o. late D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, Aged about 28 years, R/o. H.No.84O lA, Road No.41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

¶11

Ms. D. Nayanika Reddy, D/o. late late D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, Aged about 3O years, R/o. H.No.84O lA, Road No.41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

¶12

Ms. D. Niharika Reddy, D/o. late D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, Aged about 33 years, R/o. I{.No.84O lA, Road No.41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

¶13

M/s. Vijmohan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, 4-1-214, Eden Garden Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶14

Sri D. Vijaysen Reddy, S/o. D.S.P. Reddy, aged about 60 years, R/o. 1- l -380/ 1 1 /, Near Jagadamba Hospital, Ashok Nagar Extension, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶15

.dL
rl# ffi
; ' '7 1 APF ,,,?q

¶16

OA.No.108/2022

¶17

¶18

Smt D. Sharmila Reddy,

¶19

W/o. D. Vijaysen Reddy, aged about 53 yrs., R/o. 1 - 1-380/ 1 1 /, Near Jagadamba Hospital, Ashok Nagar Extension, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶20

Defendants.

¶21

Counsel for the Applicant Sn C. Prabhakar. Counsel for Defendanfs /fo. 1 to 5 Sri Nethan Reddy. Defendanls /[o.6 & 7 Ex-parte.

¶22

-: ORDER:.

¶23

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,66,67,328.8Ops., from defendants No.I to 7 as under:-

¶24

A sum of Rs.l6,l7,l}Ol- due under the Home Loan A/c.No. 002675100025577, together with future interest @ 7.8Oo/o p.a., with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of fu l1 paym ent / r e aJization ;

¶25

ii) A sum of Rs.1,49,4O,769f -, due under the Home Loan Alc. No.002675100025586, together with future interest @ 9o/o p.a., with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of full paym ent f r ealization ;

¶26

iii) A sum of Rs.9,459.80ps., due under the Loan Expenses A/c. No.0811778OOO000709, together with future interst @ l2.9Oo/o p.a., with monthly rests from the date of liling of the OA till the date of full paymentf realization;

¶27

iv) Iq th9.-egpnt..of default to pay the aforesaid claim amount, for

¶28

,,^{,r"i^;"iry,";'"rrirg*for sle or} the immovable mortgaged properties

¶29

, ,,i9 :v de s#rbecl $fued li n S chesrr&ulcs I & tl of the OA.

¶30

ii^'* 11Ns2$25 ?l h.$ \t"'.f, 'Wffi\Y,g s.#,,

¶31

¶32

OA.No.108/2022

¶33

The averments made in the application, in brief, are as under,-

¶34

i) The Applicant Bank, at the request of defendant No.l, her husband viz., late Sri D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy and defendant No.5 for sanction of Home Loan of Rs.1.00 crore, had sanctioned the said loan vide Sanction Letter dt.04.01.2010. Defendants No.1 & 5 and the deceased husband of defendant No.1, have acknowledged the terms and conditions of the said sanction. In consideration of the said sanction, defendant No.1 & her deceased husband have jointly executed Home Loan Agreement dt.11.OL.2O2O. Defendant No.S executed the Deed of Guarantee dt.11.01.2010, guaranteeing due repayment of the said loan of Rs.1.00 crores together with interst and costs.

¶35

ii) Defendants No.1, 6 & 7 along with the husband of defendant No.1 viz., late Sri D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, approached the Applicant Bank for sanction of Mortgage Loan / Business Loan of Rs.4.O0 crores, and the Applicant Bank considering the said request, had sanctioned the same. The defendants No.l,6 & 7 along with the deceased husband of defendant No.1, have executed Home Loan Agreement dt.12.Ol.2OlO agreeing to abide by all terms and conditions of the sanction. Defendant No.S executed Deed of Guarantee dt.12.OI.2010 guaranteeing due repayment of the said loan of Rs.4.00 crores together with interest and costs.

¶36

iii) Defendant No.1 and her deceased husband have created equitable mortgage over application schedules I & II properties by depositing .the^{original title deedswith the Applicant Bank on 11.01.2010to}

¶37

: ... ....: Lur6 @rruqYrL uL. ! r

¶38

1 1 lPff ffiexte the mortgage over the said properties on 12.01.2010 to the Mortgage Loan of Rs.4.00 crores by executing affidavit 1.2010. The defendant No.1 and her deceased husband

¶39

OA.No.108/2022

¶40

have jointly executed Power of Attorney dt.11.01.2010 for the aforesaid Home Loan of Rs.1.OO crore. The defendants No.l, 6 & 7 and the deceased husband of defendant No. t have^jointly executed Power of Attorney dt.11.01.2010 for Mortgage Loan of Rs.4.00 crores.

¶41

iv) In terms of the covenants stated under the aforesaid loan documents, the defendants have agree and undertaken to repay the loan amount together with interest @ 12.75% with monthly rests (at the time of sanction of loan), however, subject to variance in such rae of interest, whenever there is a change in PLR/MCLR/Base Rate and as per the directives & duidelines that may be issued by the RBI from time to time and also at the discretion of Bank. The aforesaid Home Loan of Rs.1.0O^{crore is to} be repaid in l2A months of Rs.7,22,6531- each till^{the entireloan} amount along with interest is fully repaid. The^{MortgageLoan of} Rs.4.O0 crores is to be repaid in I2O months of Rs.5,85,505/-^each till the entire loan amount along with interest and costs^{are fully} repaid.

¶42

v) After availing the aforesaid loans, the husband of defendant^No.1 viz., Sri D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy died on 24.OI.2012. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased Sri^{D.S. Chandra} Mohan Reddy, have approached the City Civil Court,^Hyderabad for partition of properties and settlement has arrived^amongthem, which has been recorded before the Lod Adalat, City^{Civil Court} Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad vide order dt.25.O3.2019ⁱⁿ "C^{No.350/ 2019 and as per the said order,OA schedules} rties fell to the share of defendants No.l to^4.

¶43

Arte* vailing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants^have

¶44

1 1 APf,'h vrolEt the terms and conditions of sanction and thereby itted default in making repayments towards the^{loan account}

¶45

OA.No.108/2022

¶46

and as such the loan account of the defendants has been classified as NPA as per the directives of the RBI. The Applicant Bank has issued loan Recall Notice dt.22.O4.2021, which has been returned undelivered. The Applicant Bank has also issued notices dt.01.O8.2O21 and 25.O5.2021 and invoked the guarantees.

¶47

vii) The defendants No.1, 6 &, 7 are co-applicants and joint borrowers. Defendants No. 5 to 7 are guarantors. Defendants No.2 to 4 along with defendant No.1 are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri C.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy. The Applicant Bank had initiated SARFAESI proceedings to recover the debt and defendants No.1 to 4 herein have challenged the same by filing SA.No.42 12022 before DRT-ll, Hyderabad and same is pending. Defendants No.l to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding dues and hence the OA.

¶48

The defendants No.l to 5 filed a common Written Statement disputing the claim of the Applicant Bank. The defendants No. 6 & 7 remained exparte.

¶49

The contentions of the defendants No.1 o 5, as appearing^{from their} Written Statement, in brief, are as under,-

¶50

The defendant No.1 is one of the four co-borrowers for the^loansot Rs.1.O0 crores and Rs.4.00 crores disbursed by the^Applicant Bank by way of Terms Loans for housing^purpose and^{she is the} wife of debeased Sri Sarath Chandra Mohn Reddy.^Defendants o.2 lo 4 are the daughters and remaining^{legal heirs of late sri} th Chandra Mohan Reddy. Defendant No.5 stood^{as guarantor}

¶51

i#i ih" said loans advanced by the Applicant Bank.

¶52

1 1 APB i?p6 the loan Sanction Letter dt.04.01.2010,^{the loan was to be} in 12O EMIs at a 'Floating Rate of Interest'^{and the}

¶53

¶54

Oe.No.108/2022

¶55

applicable interest rate for the repayment of the said loan would be 'BPLR as applicable from time to time plus margin of (-O.25oh = l2.5oo/o or as applicable at the time of disbursement,.

¶56

iii) The Reserve Bank of India vide its Circular bearing DBOD No. Dir. BC 88/13.03.00/2oo9-10, dt.og.04.2o1o, had observed thar there were various discrepancies in the system of using Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (BPLR) for lending and so stipulated that all Scheduled Commercial Banks switch over to the system of Base Rate from the BPLR system. The Applicant Bank, in direct violation of the said circular, continued to charge interest on the loan amount a per the previous BPLR system by charging high interest rates i.e., approximately l4o/o on the loan amount. Subsequently, the RBI on 03.03.2016, issued a Master Direction vide DBR. Dir. No.85/13.03.00/2-15-16, directing all Banks to sanction and renew floting rate rupee loans sanctioned w.e.f. April o1,2o16, to be priced with reference to the Marginal cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) with a further stipulation that all existing customers must be offered the option to move to MCLR system from the Base Rate system. But, the Applicant Bank failed to switch the loan account of the defendants to the MCLR system and continued to charge interest on the loan amount as per previous BPLR system with higher rate i.e., @ l4o/o p.a.

¶57

iP
,k
i
)
:l

¶58

iv)

¶59

iv) After realizing the said issues, in December,2o19, the defendants No.i to 5 on 14.12.2019, addressed a communication to the ^.:^{.:-::.;,,.-..,. ApplicantBank seekingto exercisethe said option of switching the} letter dt.21.I2.2O19, informed that the defendants are not br any change in interest rate on the ground that there rdue of 60 days in the payment of loan amount and a CIBIL score of the borrowers and with a further

¶60

OA.No.108/2022

¶61

communication that the tenor of the said loans was to lapse in February, 2O2O itself and there was a 'tenor bust', which mandated immediate repayment of all dues. The said communication is motivated and false and fails to consider that any delays in the payment of the loans were on account of high interest rate being charged on the said loans since 2077. Furthermore, it fails to provide any explanation on the part of the Applicant Bank failing to offer the option to the the defendants to switch from the BPLR system to Base Rate or the MPLR system.

¶62

v) On 09.O4.2O2O, the defendants preferred an application to the Applicant Bank seeking to exercise One Time Option to switch from the BPLR system and also avail the Repo Linked Renting Rate (RLLR), to which the Applicant Bank reduced the applicable rate of interest on the loan from 13.95o/o to 9.4o/o and informed the same to the defendants vide communication dt.O4.06.2010. However, the said change was only prospectively levied from April, 2O2O.

¶63

vi) The Applicant Bank has till date failed to restructure the loan account on the pretext that the co-borrowers viz., defendants No.6 & 7 have failed to submit their ITR and other documents and also in the light of the death of one of the co-borrowers.

¶64

vii) On 0I.O8.2O21, the account bearing No.002675100025586 was declared as NPA and the Applicant Bank issued Demand Notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, claiming n mount of Rs.1,35,33,2551-. The defendants issued reply highlighting various

¶65

, unfair'.and illegal actions of the Applicant Bank with respect to '!; ' ,l I r

¶66

., ', 't.r charins, r9 - of \ exorbitant rate of interest in the loan account in i::ltiolationtof Rel 1.\ Circulars^{of 2O1 I and 2016.The Applicant Bank in} .O9.2O21, failed to furnish any explanation for

¶67

11 APtltffio'' l..,t*i"g exbiflitant interest. The Applicant Bank issued a^fresh

¶68

OA.No.108/2022

¶69

Demand Notice on l7.ll.2o2l again claiming an amount of Rs.1,35,33,2551- as on LO.O3.2O2I. The defendants^{sent their} objections on O2.O2.2O22 with respect to the rate of^interest charged by the Applicant Bank but the Applicant^{Bank vide its} reply dt.O3.O2.2022 dismissed the objections of the^defendantsas vague and general referring to various circulars without^reference to the applicability of the same. The Applicant^{Bank merely stated} that it had communicated its inability to convert^{to Base Rate and} MCLR Linked rates in late 2O2I as the said loan^accounthad turned NPA. In fact the loan account turned^{into NPA solely due to} the exorbitant interest charged by the Bank^{for more than a} decade. So, the defendants^{prayed for the dismissalof the OA as} against them.

¶70

The Applicant Bank filed its Evidence^{Affidavit,duly sworn-inby Smt} D.V. Krishna Kumari, Asst. General^{Managerof the Applicant Bank, as} AW.l and through her marked the^{documents as Exs.A.l to A.33.} Defendant No.3 Iiled Evidence Affidavit^{on her behalf and on behalf of} defendants No. 1,2,4 & 5 and^{marked the documentsas Exs'8.1 to} 8.23.

¶71

Ld. Counsels for both parties have^{filed their respectiveWritten} Arguments.

¶72

Now, the points that arise^{for consideration are,-}

¶73

Whether the Applicant^{Bank has cstablished its claim as made in} the OA against defendants^{No. I to 7?}

¶74

ii) To what relieP ,"::'r'' r-'. ' '' i,. .\ !'li.
t..: - ,:, ::, ". '
11..

¶75

OA.No.108/2022

¶76

Potnt No.(i):-

¶77

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank in his Written Arguments, while reiterating the version of the Applicant Bank as stated supra, and contended that, the Applicant Bank has strictly followed the RBI guidelines while applying the rate of interest to the loan account of the defendants and accordingly prayed for allowing the OA.

¶78

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants No.l to 5 in his Written Arguments contended that the Applicant Bank has failed to extend the benefit of switch over of interest from BPLR to Base Rate or to MPLR as per the RBI Circulars issued from time to time and in contravention of the RBI circulars the Applicant Bank had charged interest @ 14ok p.a., from 2OlO to 2O2O. Ld. Counsel also contended that, the defendants sent representations, including objections to the Demand Notice issued u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, with regard rate of interest charged by the Bank, to which the Applicant Bank in its reply merely stated that the defendants had failed to exercise the option to switch over to the new interest rate system. The Applicant Bank did not explain why it had failed to provide the defendants with the option to switch the interest rate system from 2OlO to 2O2O. Ld. Counsel for the defendants further submitted that upon repeated requests made by the defendants, the Applicant Bank in April, 2O2O changed the interest rate from 73.4o/o to g.4% and the said reduction was only prospective. Ld. Counsel contended that the Applicant Bank has failed to offer any explanation for failing to offer the defendants the option to switch to new interest rate system in any of their communications. Ld. Counsel for the defendants, tgrsubsidirtiate his contentions, placed his reliance on the following ..'QeciSions ":. .i.^{and prayed for the dismissal of the OA:-} ' ::*8. i) o$'B"lo. "iffi"-'hn"n'ble .,, !l Karnataka High Court in^w.P.No .42815^of 'i '2OIP )if$'hekcir B;S. 7s Syndicate l3ank"; !"-.,: 1,, I '; .. .i .'

¶79

OA.No.108/2022

¶80

¶81

ii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Central Bank of India Vs. Rauindra and others", reported in^(2OO2l 1 SCC 367;

¶82

iii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rn "Corporation^{Ba.nk Vs.} D.S. Goutda",reported in (1994) 5 SCC 213; and

¶83

iv) Decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad^{in "Manmeet Singh} Vs. Union of India and others", reported in^{2OO4 SCC Online All} 1.257;

¶84

I have considered the rival submissions^{and perusedthe aforesaid} decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel^{for the defendantsNo.1 to 5.}

¶85

The admitted facts of the case are,^{defendant No.1, her husband late Sri} D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy and defendant^{No.5availedHomeLoan of} Rs.1.00 crore from the Applicant^{Bank. Further, defendant No.1,her} husband late Sri D.S. Chandra^{MohanReddy, defendants No.6 &' 7} availed Mortgage/Business Loan of^{Rs.4.0Ocrore from the Applicant} Bank. Defendants No.5 to 7 stood^{as guarantor for the due repayment of} the aforesaid two loans. Defendant^{No.1 and her husband late Sri D'S.} Chandra Mohan Reddy create^{mortgage over the applicationschedule} properties in favour of the Applicant^{Bank to secure the aforesaidloans.} The defendants No.2 to 4^{are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri D.S.} Chandra Mohan ReddY.

¶86

As stated supra, the defendants^{No.6 & 7, who are one of the guarantors} for the aforesaid loan accounts,^{remained ex-parte'}

¶87

1.) I (). The ,o1lV dispute raised by^{defendantsNo.l to 5 intheir written}

¶88

,.ttaie4gent iS,.th*, :1. Applicant Bank has^{failed to switch over the} intedegt rate ap.pli'eable^{to the loan account from tsPLR to Base Rate or to}

¶89

. MPLR for th L ! t f 1,1i,.1,.,"i:!-.ri.-

¶90

r 1'1:

¶91

o.1OE/2O22

¶92

and 03.03.2016, issued by the RBI and had the Applicant Bank switched over the interest rate to Base Rate or MPLR there would not have^been any outstanding as claimed by the Applicant Bank.

¶93

t4. According to the Applicant Bank, the RBI Circular dt.09.04.2010 in respect of introduction of Base Rate, categorically stipulates that existing loans based on BPLR system may run till their maturity and in^case existing borrowers want to switch to the new system i.e., Base^Rate, before expiry of the existing contracts, an option may be^given to^{them on} mutually agreed terms. The Applicant Bank contends that the option was made available for switching to Base Rate to each of the customers^{of the} Bank and however, the defendants have failed to exercise^{their option to} switch over to Base Rate. The Applicant Bank^{also submitted that the} RBI guidelines dt.03.03.2016 categorica-tly stipulates^{that existingloans} and credit limits linked MCLOR/Base^{Rate/BPLR shall continue till} repayment or renewal, aS the case may be,^{provided that existing} borrowers shall have the option to^{more to ExternalBenchmarkat} mutually acceptable terms. So, the^{Applicant Bankcontendsthat, switch} over may be granted by the^{Bank on mutuallyagreedtermsand the} agreement to switch over^{isnot aright of the defendantsbut a} prerogative of the Bank. The^{ApplicantBank furthercontended that,} even at the time of switching^{over to Base Rate or at the time of switching} over to MCLR, there^{was no reduction envisaged in effective rate of} interest, as the Bank had^{option of retaining the then prevailing effective} rate of interest by applying^{suitable enhanced spread on the Base Rate or} MCLR.

¶94

i5. I have perused the^{Circularsdt.09.O4.2O10 and 03.03.2016, issued by} ,,^,,^{r, ^.,theRBI. It is clear from the said circularsthat switchingover from BPLR} '.,' to:'Hase natp b{ to MCLR^{was on mutually agreedterms i.e., between} '* Bdnk i .' and : th,,e* \ borrower-defendants^{and thedefendants have no} i ',fr&tp.iifitnt r1g1rt to seek for switch^{over. Irurther,it is not the case of}

.,,(.-.-

OA.No.108/2022

the defendants that, they approached the Applicant Bank and sought for switch over to new interest system i.e., Base Rate or MCLR as per the above RBI circulars. It is also not the case of the defendants that they were servicing the loan account regularly. Admittedly, when defendants approached the Applicant Bank vide letter dt.O9.O4.2O2O seeking to exercise their One Time Option to switch over from BPLR system to RLLR, the Applicant Bank had conceded to their request and reduced the applicable rate of interest on the loan from l3.9oh to 9.4o/o. Even then, the defendants were unable to maintain regularly, which resulted in the classilication of the loan account as NPA and the Applicant Bank was constrained to issue Loan Recall letter and notices to the borrower/guarantors for payment of the outstanding dues. So, the defendants, without approaching the Applicant Bank for exercising the option for switch over from BPLR to Base Rate or to MCLR, as^per the above RBI circulars, cannot contend that, the Applicant Bank has not followed the said circulars and so they are not liable to^pay the outstanding dues in the loan account. In the^{present OA, the Applicant} Bank has claimed interest @ 7.8oh^p.a., with^{monthly rests towards the} Home Loan account, @ 9% P.2., with monthly^{rests towards Home} Loan/Mortgage Loan account and @^12.9% P.4.,^{with monthlyrests} towards Loan Expenses account.^{During the pendencyof the OA, the} Applicant Bank filed a Memo dt.22.O2.2025^{statingthat the Home Loan} account No.002675100025577^{has been closedand that the dues under} another Home Loan af c. No. 002675100025586^{are Rs.,77,75,6661'} and in Loan Expenses alc. No.081 i778000000709^are Rs.2,24,961.80ps. So, considering^{the fact that the defendants have not} denied availment of loans,^{creation ofsecurityinterest over the} applica{ion Schedule^{properties in favour of the Applicant Bank, cleared} tld.,': -t/' ddutslaiid.rng'.::.. .....: . :' balance^{under Home Loanaccount} ''fio"frozolS' '7 -.-.:^{,4</sup> . ir I:..^- O25tY7'i'and '::.il .i.,.'1-- "."t also considering the fact that their only grievance Lieing the rSte'bf interest^{charged by the Applicant Bank,I am} I t .\r of thd cori3itiei'-ld 'ia view that^{the interestbe awarded} @^{9o/o simple,}}

¶99

¶100

OA.No.108/2022

¶101

pendente lite and future in respect of the balance two loan accounts i.e., Home Loan a/c. No. 002675100025586, wherein outstanding dues were Rs.1,49,40,7691- and the Loan Expenses a/c. No.oSllrr9ooooooTog, wherein the outstanding dues were Rs.9,459.80ps., as on date of filing of the OA.

¶102

Admittedly, the defendants No.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, along with the defendant No.1, who is also a co-borrower. So, the liabitity of defendants No.2 to 4 is to be restricted only to the extent of the estate devolved upon them from the deceased Sri D.S. Chanra Mohan Reddy. Accordingly, this point is answered.

¶103

Point No.(ii):-

¶104

In the result, the present Original Application is allowed with costs as under,-

¶105

i) The defendants No.1 to 7 arejointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,49,50,228.80 with future interest and costs as under -

¶106

a) a sum of Rs.1,49,40,7691-, due under the Home Loan Af c. No.0O2675100025586, together with future interest @ 9o/o p.a., simple, from the date of Iiling of the OA till the date of full payment/ realizatron;

¶107

Expenses A/c. interest @ 9%

¶108

the date of full

¶109

' 11 f Pil ?iffi^{Patrye"nt/reatization;}

"^il

, l,'

OA.No.108/2022

ii) However, the liability of defendants No.2 to 4 is restricted only to the extent of the estate devolved upon them from the deceased Sri D.S. Chanra Mohan Reddy;

¶115

iii) In default of payment by the defendants as stated in (i) above, the Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable properties described in the schedules to the OA;

¶116

iv) The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.1, 5, 6 & 7, including the estate of late Sri D.S. Chanra Mohan Reddy, lying in the hands of defendants No.1 and 2 to 4;

¶117

v) The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA, including Advocate Fee as prevailing in the State; and

¶118

vi) The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of this order.

¶119

Issue Recovery Certificate accordin gly.

¶120

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶121

(Dictated to the Priuate Secretary, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thb the 1lth dag of April, 2025).

¶122

sd/ - (G. GOPICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶123

lsst,
oet"t.

Idbi Bank v. Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Smt D Hymavathi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri. Boinpally Venkatesh

Idbi Bank versus Sri. Bodakunta Vasanth

State Bank of India versus M/S. S.R. Cements Bricks

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kalepu Shivaji Prasad

State Bank of India versus Namo Balaji Food Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Honda