Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Rachamreddygari Satish Kumar Reddy

DRT28 Feb 2025OA/183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-II at Hyderabad allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against six joint and several defendants for recovery of a loan of Rs. 22,04,864/-.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 22,04,864/- plus interest; mortgage properties and personal assets subject to realization; recovery certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Rachamreddygari Satish Kumar Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 183 oF 2024

¶3

HDFC Bank Ltd., Having its omce 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.

¶4

.....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Rachamreddygari Satish Kumar Reddy, S/o.Uma Maheshwara Reddy, Aged about 32^years, Occ: Self Employed, R/o.H.No. 1-140, Nandavaram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool Dist-51g124.

¶7

Mr.Rachamreddy Suresh Kumar Reddy, S/o.Uma Maheshwara Reddy, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Govt. Employ, R/o.H.No.1-140, Nandavaram village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnoot Dist-518124.

¶8

Mr.Rachamreddy Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Uma Maheshwa ra Reddy, Aged about 29 Years, Occ:^pvt Employ, R/o. H. No.1- 140, Nandavaram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool Dist-518124.

¶9

l4rs. Rachamreddygari Lakshmi Devi, Wo.Uma^Maheshwara Reddy, Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Self Employed, R/o.H.No. 1-290, Nandavaram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool Dist-518124.

¶10

Mrs.Rachamreddy Susmitha Reddy. W/o.Suresh Kumar Reddy, ,VXri^ _/-c A'4,"-'

¶11

oA.NO.183/2024

¶12

Aoed about^{27 Yearc,Occ: Self Employed,} R/o.H.No.^{1-140, Nandavaramvillage,} e'aniqanapaf^{re Mandal, KurnoolDist-518124'}

¶13

1. Mr.Annagouni^{Sreenivasulu, S/o'Ramdas,} Aoed about^{27 Years,Occ:Business,} R7o.^{H. No.28/476, MaruthiColonY,} Noonepalli,^{NandyalMandal,} Kurnool^District -^518501. .. .Defendants

¶14

: Mr. M. Srinivas^Reddy Cou nsel^{for the} Applicant

Defendants'

:Ex-Parte

::^{q-Lg-L& ::}

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.22,04,864/-^{trcm the defendantsjolntly and} severally with @^{11olo p.a. from 23.77.2023(cashcredit & DOD} loan facilities) the^{statement date to the date of award/decree} and thereafter @18o/o F.a.^{compounded with monthlyrests} from the date of^{application till the date of realizationalong} with costs and in default^{for saleof OA scheduleproperties}

¶19

Summons sent to^{D1 to 5 returned withendorsementrefused} hence, deemed to^{be served,whereassummons served on D6'} They were set ex-parte on^{14.08.2024 as called absent and no} representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined^{D.Suresh, DeputyLegal Manager,} as AW-1 and marked 11 documents^{through him as Ex. A.1 to} Ex. A.11.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the Appllcant Bank reported orders^{may be} passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record. So"$

¶22

¶23

oa.NO.783/2024

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶25

Whether the Appticant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶26

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 joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.183/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.22,04,864 l - with future interest @ 1 0.05o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

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;

¶30

iii) the applicant bank ls also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization "r rr, Ou.W*

¶31

oA.NO.183/2024

¶32

iv) the^{applicant bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶33

B, The Applicant^{Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the^{date of receipt of this Order'}

¶34

Issue^{Recovery Certificate accordingly'}

¶35

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} tOi.t.t"O^{to the steno, corrected,signedand pronouncedbymein the open court on} this the^{28th daY of February,2025)'}

¶36

/)T "'o"' (ryftofesnwnR KorHE) -PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Rachamreddygari Satish Kumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Rachamreddygari Satish Kumar 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 Gajjala Madhu Mohan Reddy

Uco Bank versus M/S Poorna Electronics