Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Gajjala Madhu Mohan Reddy

DRT28 Feb 2025OA/153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by HDFC Bank against five respondents, declaring them jointly and severally liable for approximately Rs. 28.56 Lakhs plus interest and costs based on examined documents.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs. 28,56,980.68 with future interest @10.05% p.a. and costs; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Gajjala Madhu Mohan Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I] AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUAERARY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR Ko o*.rrorrl'j;F1...."fl^{., L. LB. (Hons. ), M.A.}

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 153 oF 2024

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., Having its office at Bank House q-b-J-246 & 6-3-244/A, 6th Floor, Roxana^palladium, Road No. j aanjara Hilts, Hyderabad _ sObO:+. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.. . ..Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

,. Il:9gli?t: Madhu Mohan Reddy, s/o.Maddileti Reddv_

¶8

l9^"9,"^{30-yea[, occ:Farmer,} R/o_H.No.3-5-2 1, Chennapureddy 5treet, Allagadda, Kurnool District_51g 543.

¶9

Mr.Gajjala Madhusudhan Rp.ddy, S/o.Madditeti Reddy, lgeq^{a.borl 30-years, Occ: Farmer,} R/o_H.No.3_5_21, chennapureddy 5treet, Allagadda, Kurnool District_51g543.

¶10

, Ij:9"1,.1r-t{djreri Reddy, s/o.Bati Reddy, Ageo a-bout 37 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. H. No.3-5-21, Chennapureddy street, Allagadda, Kurnool District_ 518543.

¶11

Mrs.cajjala Venkata Lakshmi, Wo.Maddileti Reddy. Aged a.bout 51 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No.3-5-21, Chennapureddy Street, Allagadda, Kurnooi District_518543.

¶12

Mr.Gopireddy Sai Sivakumar Reddy, S/o. Maheswara Reddy, Aged about 30^years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-3, Chinta Kommadinne Village, Allagadda Ma ndal, Kurnool District- 518543.

.. . Defendants

fu""

oA.NO.153/2024

Counsel^{for the ApPlicant}

¶18

: Mr.M.Srinivas^Reddy

: Ex-Parte

Defendants

:: ORDER^::

1.^{rhe Appricant "- tl':t-:::} ffi":: ::;:::Ti[':Tj sum^{of Rs 28'56'980'68} 23 'll'2f,23^{(cashcredit & DOD}

¶23

severally^{with @ 11vo} uf "o' loan^{facilities)the statement} '^{date to the date of award/decree} and^{thereafter@18% p'a compounded with monthlyrests} from^{the date of applicationtill the date of realizationalong} with^{costs and in default for saleof OA scheduleproperties'}

¶24

Summons^{sent to D1 returned with endorsementunclaimed} hence,^{deemedto be served'whereassummons served on D2'} 4 and^{5' They were set ex-parteon 04 10'2024 as called} absentandnorepresentation.Applicant.ounsglsl3ledthatDl, 2 and^{4 arcthe LRs of deceasedD3'}

¶25

3.TheApplicantBankexaminedDsuresh'DeputyLegal-Manager' as AW-1^{and marked 11 documents through him as Ex A l to} Ex. A^11'

¶26

Ld. counsel^{for the ApplicantBank reported ordersmay be} passed through^{merits Perused the material placed on record'}

¶27

The^{point that arises for considerationis:-}

¶28

Bank^{is entitled} Whether^{the APP|icant} the OA^against for the^{ctaim madein} oA schedule the Defendants^and properties? ffio"e

¶29

oA.NO.153/2024

¶30

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recltals 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 to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, the present Originat Application No.153/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶32

i) The Defendants 7, 2, 4 and 5 are joingy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.28,56,980.68ps with future interest @10.05o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

oA.NO.153/2024

¶38

¶39

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶40

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Oi.tat"d to the steno,^{corrected,signedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 28th^{day of February, 2025)'}

¶41

¶42

SHWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶43

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Gajjala Madhu Mohan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Gajjala Madhu Mohan 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

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Talluri Clement Samson

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bsr Earth Movers

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Madharam Ramesh

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Moghuls Paradiez.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Rachamreddygari Satish Kumar Reddy

Uco Bank versus M/S Poorna Electronics