Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Quality Engineering

DRT21 Aug 2025OA/159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application under Section 19 RDB Act. The court held defendants liable to pay outstanding dues based on unchallenged evidence, secured by hypothecated assets, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs.24,91,968.08 plus future interest and costs, secured by hypothecated assets, and issuing recovery certificate.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Quality Engineering — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVI AT HYDEMBAD DATED rHIS rnu1"-'*'B"AL-II DAY oF AUGUsr, 2o2s ,REsENT: ,n. orurro,'1s'

¶2

L LB (Hons'), M.A. '-*;fflJ1?r?.t"fl'

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLTCATION NO: 159 OF 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd., Having its orfice at # 1-1n_^^t-. 3'; ;i ;'",-: ;;'""d : ; J.#'r;::1', 5ecunderabad Mandal Begumpet, Hyderabad - 5O0O 16. Rep by its Authorized signatory.

¶6

....Appricant.

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. Quality Engineering., Rep by its Proprietor Mr.K.Mohana Rao Office al #5-78/78, Phase V

¶9

Survey No.182, IDA Jeedimetla Medchal lvlalkajgiri, Hyderabad-500055.

¶10

Mr. Kancharapu^{Mohana Rao} S/o. Krishnadasu,^{Aged about38 Years} Occ: Proprietor^{of M/s.QualityEngineering} R/o. Plot No.205,^{Block No.B, RaghavaApts} IDA Jeedimetla, QuthubullaPur Hyderabad - 500055.

¶11

. ... Defenda nts

¶12

: M/s. M.Srinivas^Reddy Counsel^{for the APP|icant}

¶13

: No RePresentation Counsel for^Defendants

¶14

:: ORDER^::

¶15

u/s 19 of^{The Recovery}

¶16

1. The Applicant^{BankFiledthe present OA} of Debts &^{BankruptcyAct, 1993 for} recovery Qf (N'"a sum^of

¶17

oA^159/2023

¶18

¶19

Rs.24,e1,e68.08p,^{u".,'n"-:1";T::.::'l:I.'ll"'::::"J,} tosether^{with future} '"t:t"t-:,;;:,""n *,,n costs and sare apPlication^{till the date of reali} hyPothecated^assets'

¶20

The the averments 1"t^{defendant herein of applicant is bank a sole as proprietor per the oA, represented briefly, are by that2nd} defendant^{who stood as co-borrower'availedCashCredit} (Working capital)^{Loan facility and 2nd defendanthasalso} availed credit^{Cardfacility fromthe applicant bank Defendants} created^{hypothecation of OA schedule movable propertiesas} security to^{the loan. Defendantsexecutednecessaryloan} documents.^{Defendantsfailed and neglected to repay the loans} as^per the agreed terms.^{The loan accountswere declaredas} NPA on 31.08.2022. Despite several demands failed to regularize the accounts in spite of loan recall notice dated 14.72.2022. As the defendants failed to clear the outstanding dues, the present OA is filed.

¶21

1st Defendant was set ex-parte on 11.10.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

2nd Defendant entered appearance through their counsel Mr.A.Venkata Chary, but he did not choose to file written statement. Accordingly, defendants right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 07.71.2023.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined V V pavan Kumar, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 15 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.15 and examined Sumaya Shaik, Legal Manager as AW-2 and marked 05 documents through her as E g A.16 to Ex. A.20. //,M.*fl

¶24

/J.,/ -

¶25

oa.rsg12023

¶26

2nd Defendant right of adducing evidence was forfeited^vide docket order dated 11.07.2025.

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank.^2nd Defendant right of advancing arguments^{forfeited on} 05.08.2025. Perused the material^placed on^record.

¶28

The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶29

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled^{for the OA} claim against the Defendants and^hypothecated assets 2

¶30

According to the learned counsel for^{the applicant,after availing} loan facilities, the defendants committed default^{in repayment} despite loan recall notice.^{Henceapplicantbank is entltledto} the OA claim consldering the documents^{exhibited as Exs'A.1to} A.15 through AW.1, the documents exhibited as^{Exs.A.16 to} A.20 through AW.2 and the recitals^therein.

¶31

As stated supra, 1st defendant remained ex-parte and^the2nd defendant though entered appearance^{throughtheir counsel,} they did not choose to file written^{statement,adduceevidence} or advance arguments.^{Accordingly, their right was forfeited.} Under such circumstances, the^{EvidenceAffidavit of AW.1} coupled with the recitals in^{Exs. A.1 to A.15 and the Evidence} Affidavit of AW.2 coupled with the^{recitals in Exs'A.16to A.20} marked on behalf of the applicant bank^{remainsunchallenged} and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that^{the defendantsare liableto} pay the OA claim to the applicant bank with futurq^{interest and} costs. ,4X"*

¶32

4 o A.1s912023

¶33

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.159/2023is} allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.24,91,968.08ps with future interest @12.75o/o^{p.a. simple from the dateof} application till the date of realization;

¶35

ii) the OA claim is secured by way^of hypothecated assets 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^properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶37

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 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 and upload in Web Portal.

¶41

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21't day of August, 2025.)

¶42

.11....

¶43

--t.

¶44

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Quality Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Quality Engineering

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

Seela Suri Babu versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Trithika Naresh Traders

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Shivram Sarbendu Mallick

State Bank of India versus Sandhya Vani

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Y Sai Praveen Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Hindustan Springs