Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

DRT14 Jul 2025OA/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This DRT allowed an application for recovery of debt totaling over Rs. 1.49 crore plus interest against seven defendants, including borrowers, guarantors, and legal heirs. The court directed deduction of a prior court-mandated deposit and affirmed liability of heirs within the scope of their estate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,49,40,769 less deposit, plus interest @9% on Home Loan and Loan Expenses.

Idbi Bank versus Smt D Hymavathi Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE I 4TH DAY OF JULY,2(J-25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

oA.No. 10A/2022

¶5

IDBI Bank Limited, Mahavir House, Basheerbagh Square, Hyderabad - 500 029.

¶6

Rep. by its Asst. General Manager.

¶7

Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt D. Himavathi Reddy, W lo.late D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. H.No -84O I A, 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 30 years, R/o. H.No.84O /A, 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. H.No.84O lA, Road No.41, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.

¶13

M/ s. Vijmohan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, 4-l-21 4, Eden Garden Road, Ramkote, bad - 500 001. Reddy,

¶14

.eddy, aged about 6O years, 1 1/, Near Jagadamba k Nagar Extension,

1r rif,ffi$: 00 020.

OA.No.108/2022

Smt D. Sharmila Reddy, 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.

¶19

Defendants.

¶20

Counsel for the Applicant .. Sri C. Prabhakat Counsel for Defendants No.l to 5 : Si Nethan Reddg. Defendants No.6 & 7 : Ex-parte.

¶21

-:ORDERi

¶22

(Modified as per the Order dt.14.02.2025 in MA.N1.23/ 2O2S)

¶23

This application is hled by the Applicants u/s. 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 1,66,67,328.80ps., from defendants No. 1 to 7 as under:-

¶24

i) A sum of Rs. 16,17,100/- due under the Home Loan A/c.No. 002675100025577, together with future interest @ 7.BOo/o p.a., with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of full payment/ real ization;

¶25

ii) A sum of Rs. 1,49,40,769/-, due under the Home Loan A/c. No.002675100025586, together with future interest @ 9o/o p.a., with monthly rests from the date of hling of the OA ti1l the date of full payment/ real ization;

¶26

iii) A sum of Rs.9,459.80ps., due under the Loan Expenses A/c. No.081 177aOOOOOO7 09, together with future interst @^{12.9Oo/op.a.,}

¶27

with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization;

¶28

of default to pay the aforesaid claim amount, for for sale of the immovable mortgaged properties I & II of the OA.

¶29

¶30

OA.No.108/2022

¶31

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

¶32

i) The Applicant Bank, at the request of defendant No.1, her husband viz., late sri D.s. chandra Mohan Reddy and defendant No.S 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.l, 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.11.01.2o2o. Defendant No.5 executed the Deed of Guarantee dt.11.01 .2oLo, guaranteeing due repayment of the said loan of Rs.1.00 crores together with interst and costs.

¶33

ii) Defendants No.l, 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.4.0o crores, and the Applicant Bank considering the said request, had sanctioned the same. The defendants No.l, 6 e 7 along with the deceased husband of defendant No.l, have executed Home Loan Agreement dt. L2.or.2oro agreeing to abide by all terms and conditions of the sanction. Defendant No.S executed Deed of Guarantee dt.L2.ol.2oro guaranteeing due repayment of the said loan of Rs.4.00 crores together with interest and costs.

¶34

iii)

¶35

iii) Defendant No.l and her deceased husband have created equitable mortgage over application schedules I & II properties by depositing ,.^{.::,:"':::ithe,qriginal title deeds with the ApplicantBank on 11.01.2010} to .";,: ' .i r,. """".rtlh.rfn^{Home Loan of Rs.1.0o crores and confirmed the same by} ,,,"*..rrfffti&ffidavit dt.11 .oL.2olo and thereafter they have extended the over the said properties on 12.01.2010 to secure the ,: 1 { Jr,&rdffie. of Rs.4.00 crores by executing affidavit t-1'. dt l^.) n l The defendant No.1 and her deceased husband have

¶36

OA.No.108/2022

¶37

jointly executed Power of Attorney dt.11.o1.2oro for the aforesaid Home Loan of Rs.1.o0 crore. The defendants No.1, 6 & 7 and the deceased husband of defendant No.1 have jointly executed power of Attorney dt.11.01.2010 for Mortgage Loan of Rs.4.00 crores.

¶38

iv)

¶39

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 @ t2.TS% 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 & duidetines that may be issued by the RBI from time to time and also at the discretion of Bank. The aforesaid Home Loan of Rs.l.oo crore is to be repaid in L2o months of Rs.1,22,653/- each till the entire loan amount along with interest is fully repaid. The Mortgage Loan of Rs.4.0o crores is to be repaid in 120 months of Rs.5,85,505/- each titl the entire loan amount along with interest and costs are fully repaid.

¶40

¶41

After availing the aforesaid loans, the husband of defendant No.1 viz., Sri D.S. chandra Mohan Reddy died on 24.o1.2012. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased Sri D.s. chgndra Mohan Reddy, have approached the city civil court, Hyderabad for partition of properties and settlement has arrived among them, which has been recorded before the Lod Adalat, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad vide order dt.25.o3.2019 in LAC No.3sol2olg and as per the said order, oA schedules properties fell to the share of defendants No.1 to 4.

¶42

.. ,'' --)-,,.-;"::,^{vi) 4f[i*(aitingthe aforesaid loan facilities,the defendants have} .,1'^sr, 1,lll"l\ i,:.,;, t'.: ,r:',, v il o idtfu). tat%\ terms and conditions of sanction and thereby committed {i lN^for 'J{ default it}, ry\akin+akin g repayments towards the loan account and as such {[^* 1 [^{;r;1tSfl$oa,S"rtrntof the defendants has been classified as NPA as per} t li the ai.5eg$Vbs of the RBI. The Applicant Bank has issued loan Recall \fur$"- ^.**ffif W

¶43

OA.No.108/2022

¶44

Notice dt.22.O4.2O21, which has been returned undelivered. The Applicant Bank has also issued notices dt.O1 .O8.2O21 and 25.O5.2021 and invoked the guarantees.

¶45

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 Iiling sA.No.42 12022 before DRT-ll, Hyderabad and same is pending. Defendants No.1 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding dues and hence the OA.

¶46

aJ. The defendants No.1 to 5 filed a common Written Statement disputing the claim of the Applicant Bank. The defendants No. 6 & 7 remained ex-parte.

¶47

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

¶48

i) The defendant No.1 is one of the four co-borrowers for the loans of Rs.1.00 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 deceased Sri Sarath Chandra Mohn Reddy. Defendants No.2 to 4 are the daughters and remaining legal heirs of late Sri Sarath Chandra Mohan Reddy. Defendant No.5 stood as guarantor for the said loans advanced by the Applicant Bank.

¶49

ii) As per the loan Sanction Letter dt.04.01.2010, the loan was to be repaid ih 120 EMIs at a 'Floating Rate of Interest'and the applicable intereSt ri4te for the repayment of the said loan would be 'BPLR as applicable\Tr"*^{time to time plus} margin of^(-O.25o/o = l2.5Oo/o or as applicabJeifit the time of disbursement'. _/l

¶50

OA.No.108/2022

¶51

iii) The Reserve Bank of India vide its Circular^{bearing DBOD No. Dir.} BC 88/13.03.0O/2OO9-10, dt.Og.O4.2O1O, had observed that^there were various discrepancies in the system of^{using BenchmarkPrime} 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 violationof the said} circular, continued to charge interest^{on the loan amounta 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 O1,2016, to be priced} with reference to the Marginal Cost of^{Funds based LendingRate} (MCLR) with a further stipulation that all existing^{customers must} be offered the option to move to^{MCLR systemfrom the Base Rate} system. But, the Applicant Bank failed^{to switch the loan account of} the defendants to the MCLR system^{and continued to chargeinterest} on the loan amount as^{per previous BPLR systemwith higher rate} r.e., @ L4o/o p.a.

¶52

iv) After reabzing the said issues, in^{December,2019, the defendants} No.1 to 5 0n 14.12.2019, addressed a^{communicationtothe} Applicant Bank seeking to exercise the^{said option of switchingthe} loan account from BPLR to MPLR system but,^{the Applicant Bank} vide its letter dt.21.12.2o19, informed that^{the defendants are not} ,Wl. for any change in interest rate on the ground that there was ue of 60 days in the payment of^{loan amount and asked for} re of the borrowers and with a further^{communication} r of the said loans was to lapse in February,^{2O2O itself} 1 E^{JUL effi thenf iwas a 'tenor bust',which mandatedimmediate repayment} riJ j of alldtHi The said communication is motivated^{and false and fails}

¶53

.t'$t'[itIi

¶54

OA.No.108/2022

¶55

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 2O11. 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.

¶56

v) On O9.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 L3.95% to 9.4o/o and informed the same to the defendants vide communication dt.04.06.2010. However, the said change was only prospectively levied from April, 2O2O.

¶57

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.

¶58

vii) On Ol.O8.2O2l, 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 unfair and illegal actions of the Applicant Bank with respect to charing of exorbitant rate of interest in the loan account in violation of RBI Circulars of 2O11 and 2016. The Applicant Bank in its reply dt.3o.O9.2O2l, failed to furnish any explanation for levying bt ant interest. The Applicant Bank issued a fresh Demand i\aB\ 17.11.2021 again claiming an amount of Rs.1,35,33,255/or 03.2021. The defendants sent their objections on

¶59

1. with respect to the rate of interest charged by the k but the Applicant Bank vide its reply'dt.O3.O2.2O22

¶60

OA.No.108/2022

¶61

dismissed the objections of the defendants as 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 2021 as the said loan account had 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.^*The defendants approached the Hon'ble Court for the State of Telangana uide WP.No.9288 of 2022 seeking to quash Sec.1'3(4) notice, issued bg the Applicant Bank herein, uherein the Hon'ble High Court utas pleased to pass an order dt.21.02.2022 restrqining the Applicant Bank from proceeding further pursuant to the Possesslon Notice on condition that the Defendants herein shall deposit 15% of the outstanding dues as claimed in the Possession Notice. The defendants paid 15% of the outstanding dues amounting to Rs.20,29,988/- on 09.03.2022. So, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the OA as against them.

¶62

The Applicant Bank filed its Evidence Affidavit, duly sworn-in by Smt D.V. Krishna Kumari, Asst. General Manager of the Applicant Bank, as AW.1 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 documents as Exs.B.1 to B.23.

¶63

Ld. Counsels for both parties have filed their respective Written Arguments.

¶64

.N:y.,^{the points that arise for considerationare,-}

¶65

i) Whether the icant Bank has established its claim as made in fendants No.1 to 7?

OA.No.108/2022

ii) To what relieP

Point No.(i):-

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.

¶70

¶71

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants No.1 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 @ l4o/o p.a., from 2OtO 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 13.4o/o to 9.4o/o 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.de.fqpdantsthe option to switch to new interest rate systemin any} "' ''i.' of thpir a'aftntithnications. Ld. Counsel for the defendants, to substantiate ,!i',i!J" his.';ijpnte"ilfuhaced^{his relianceon the following decisionsand prayed} ,'.1^'"' for tkre diuniss# df tn" oa'lqiul;lii: ": =iI ffitf--,.-...r,,-$

¶72

OA.No.108/2022

¶73

¶74

Decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.42815 of 2Ol9 - "SLpkar B.S. Vs. Syndicate Bank";

¶75

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

¶76

iii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Corporation Bank Vs. D.S. Goutda", reported in (199a) 5 SCC 213; and

¶77

iv) Decision of the Honble High Court of Allahabad it 'Manmeet Singh Vs. Union of India and others", reported in 2OO4 SCC Online A1l 1257;

¶78

I have considered the rival submissions and^perused the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants^{No. 1} to 5.

¶79

The admitted facts of the case are, defendant No. 1, her husband late Sri D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy and defendant No.S availed Home Loan^of Rs. 1.OO crore from the Applicant Bank. Further, defendant No.l,^her husband late Sri D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy, defendants No.6 & 7 availed Mortgage/ Business Loan of Rs.4.00 crore from the Applicant^Bank. Defendants No.5 to 7 stood as guarantor for the due repayment of^the aforesaid two loans. Defendant^No. I and her^{husbandlate Sri D.S.} Chandra Mohan Reddy create mortgage over the application^schedule properties in favour of the Applicant Bank to secure the aforesaid loans. The defendants No.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri^D.S. Chandra Mohan Reddy.

¶80

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

¶81

The.only raised by defendants No.1 to 5 in their written statement is " that, the cant Bank has failed to switch over the interest^rate

¶82

1[JUL?ffi

¶83

OA.No.108/2022

¶84

applicable to the loan account from BPLR to Base Rate or to MpLR for the period 2O10 to 2O2O, as per the Circulars dt.09.O4.2OtO 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.

¶85

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 categorically stipulates that existing loans and credit limits linked MCLOR/Base Rate/BPLR shail continue till repayment or renewal, as the case may be, provided that existing borrowers shall have the option to more to External Benchmark at mutually acceptable terms. So, the Applicant Bank contends that, switch over may be granted by the Bank on mutually agreed terms and the agreement to switch over is not a right of the defendants but a prerogative of the Bank. The Applicant Bank further contended 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.

¶86

I the Circulars d1.09.04.2010 and 03.O3.20i6, issued by the

¶87

is the said circulars that switching over from BPLR to

¶88

Ba€ei'Rate or LR was on mutually agreed terms i.e., between Bank efendants and the defendants have no independent

¶89

OA.No.108/2022

¶90

right to seek for switch over. Further, it is not the case of 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.09.04.2O2O seeking td 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 frorn l3.9o/o to 9.4o/o. Even then, the defendants were unable to maintain regularly, which resulted in the classification of the loan account as NPA and the Applicant Bank was constrained to issue Loan Recall letter arrd 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 @ 7.8o/o p.a., with monthly rests towards the Home Loan account, @ 9% p.a., with monthly rests towards Home Loan/Mortgage Loan account and @ 12.9o/o p.a., with monthly rests towards Loan Expenses account. During the pendency of the OA, the Applicant Bank frled a Memo dt.22.O2.2O25 stating that the Home Loan account No.002675100025577 has been closed and that the dues under another Home Loan a/c. No. 002675100025586 are Rs. 1,77,75,6661- and in Loan Expenses a/c. No.081 1778000000709 arc Rs.2,24,961.80ps. So, considering the fact that the defendants have not denied availment of

¶91

on of security interest over the application schedule properties e Applicant Bank, cleared the outsta-nding balance under t No.002675100025577 and also considering the fact t hpl$Ll#eanr6-J-am^{of the} considered^view that the interest be awarded t;,a ' lite and, future in respect of the balance two loan

¶92

OA-No.108/2022

¶93

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.O81 1778000000709, wherein the outstanding dues were Rs.9,459.80ps., as on date of Iiling of the OA.^*Admittedlg, the defendants haue paid an amount of Rs.20,29,988/- to the Applicant Bank as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana uide order dt.21.02.2022 in WP.No.9288/2022. So, the Applicant Bank is entitled to OA claim less Rs.2O,29,988/-

¶94

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 liability 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.

¶95

Polnt No.(tt):-

¶96

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

¶97

The defendants No.1 to 7 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank^*the OA claim with future interest and costs as under,-

¶98

a) a sum of Rs. 1,49,40,769 f -,^*less Rs.20,29,988/ - due under the Home Loan A/c. No.002675100025586, together with future interest @ 9o/o p.a., simple, from the date of filing of the OA till

¶99

' .-. . the date of full payment / real ization;

¶100

t.. . il:."-\r

¶101

-:.",: b)^'B6f\l of Rs.9,459.80ps., due under the loan Expenses A/c.

¶102

.lj-

¶103

fl /i4-:.,r'r"F,(Jrr\5':','r))7'ovPl'',uuculruclLIrEtruarrE/xl,clrucsfl/L''^W r ri*,: Ul uo.9A rzzaoo0oooNo.q8 **** 1778000000 7 o0 9, together with future interest @ 9% {i^- 1 t^{JUt 'il$} "iY:,^{from the date of filing of the oA till the date of full} \g ear$gntTreariz'ation; \-+^ A:, A:, .t;^,t/

¶104

\g \-+^ A:, A:, \t':, 1;;;j

¶105

OA.No.108/2022

¶106

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. Channa Mohan Reddy;

¶107

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;

¶108

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

¶109

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

¶110

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

¶111

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶112

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concemed.

¶113

(Dda.ted to the Priuate Secretary' transcribed by him, conected, signed and protounced bg me in the open @urt on this the 141h daA ofJulg, 2025).

¶114

sd/c. coPrcHANDf PRESIDII{G OFFICER

¶115

1 { JU!- ?1!r

¶116

TH.|ECOPY,
O !/u,*;rd
a"rr.dt,M,

¶117

DRI-I, fl r,jriir'.'.1i1....

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Roshini Dendukuri

State Bank of India versus Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala

State Bank of India versus Mr. Konda Mahesh Kumar

Idbi Bank versus M/S. Topaz Aerospace Technologies

Pushpa Trading versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Smt. Kethavath Saroja