Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S M P Enterprises

DRT27 Mar 2025OA/26/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of loan dues. Defendants failed to file written statement or evidence, forfeiting their rights. The court held the defendants liable based on unchallenged documents and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay the claimed sum with future interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties for realization; Costs awarded.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S M P Enterprises — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS^{THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH,2025}

¶2

PRESENT: 5H.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

ORiGINAL^{APPLICATION NO: 26 OF 2023}

¶4

Between:

¶5

HDFC Bank^Ltd , Having its office^{at # 1-10-60/3,} 3'd Floor(3A),^{SuryodaYa comPlex,} Begumpet,^{Hyderabad- 500016'} Rep. by its^{Authorized Signatory'}

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. M.P. EnterPrises., Rep by its^{Authorised Signatory} R/o. Plot No.4,^{Ganesh Nagar,} Machabollaram,^Alwal, Medchal - Matkajgiri,^Hyderabad, Telangana -^500010'

¶9

Sarasam Prabhakar^ReddY, S/o.S. Sai^Reddy, Age 36 Years,^{Occ: Business,} R/o.H.No.6-97,^Annasagar, Mulugu Mandalam,^{Chilla Sagar,} Medak, Hyderabad.^Telangana -⁵⁰²²⁷⁹ '

¶10

.... Defenda^nts

¶11

Counsel for the^APPlicant

¶12

M/s.Srihari Bathina

¶13

Counsel for^Defendants

¶14

M/s.P.Vikram Chandra

¶15

::^qLLEB::

¶16

The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA} u/s 19 of The *u.ou"., of Debts & BankruPtcy^{Act, 1993 for} recovery of a sum^of ,j4rn r "$ /,1/^--u'u'

¶17

¶18

c,A.2612023

¶19

Rs. 34,38,597.81 ps under Loan A/c. Nos.8395263 7, B3g}gg2g,

¶20

83989944 & 8148601 with interests @ t2.07o/o, tt,52Vo, 77.52o/o & 9,25o/o e.a. from the defendants joinfly and severally together along with future interest @ 2olo p.m. from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs and sale hypothecated vehicle.

¶21

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA. briefly, are that the 1"t defendant being the borrower and 2nd defendant being the co-applicant and guarantor, availed commercial equipment Loans from the applicant bank. Defendants created hypothecation of OA schedule vehicle as security to the loan A/c.No.83952637. Defendan documents. Derendants ruir"o lino ff:::::,J:'r"f,[ j::: as per the agreed terms. The loan accounts were declared as NPA on 03.06.2022. Despite several demands failed to regularize the accounts in spite of demand notice dated 29.09.2022. As the defendants failed to ctear the outstanding dues, the present OA is filed.

¶22

Defendants entered appearance through their counsel Mr.P.Vikram Chandra, but they did not choose to file written statement. Accordingly, defendants right of filing written statement was forteited vide docket order dated 30.0g.2024.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Sumaya Shaik, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 05 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶24

Defendants right of adducing evidence was fg{feited vide docket order dated 2t.o2.202s. OWv*t"

¶25

oa.2612O23

¶26

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Defendants, right of advancing arguments forfeited on 20.03.2025. perused the material placed on record.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is;-

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and hypothecated vehicle?

¶29

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, after availing loan facilities, the defendants committed default in repayment despite demand notice. Hence applicant bank is entiued to the OA claim considering the documents exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.05 through AW.1 and the recitals therein.

¶30

As stated supra, though defendants entered appearance through their counsel, they did not choose to file written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments. Accordingly their right was forfeited. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.05 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the applicant bank with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.2612023 is allowed as under: -

¶32

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.34,38,597.81ps under Loan A/c. Nos. 839s2637, 83989929, 839899t4, & 8148601

¶33

oa.2612021

¶34

with future interest^{@9.65010p a' simple from} the date of^{applicationtill the date of} realization;

¶35

ii) the oA claim^{issecured bY way of} hypothecated^{vehicle described inthe} schedule annexed^{tothe OA and the} applicant^{bank is entitledto 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 realizationof its dues;}

¶37

iv) the applicant^{bankis entitledfor the costs'}

¶38

The Applicant^{Bankis directed to Rle Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date^{of receiptof this Order.}

¶39

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶40

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload in^{Web Portal}

¶41

(Dictated to the steno, signed^{andpronouncedby mein theopencourton this the 27r'} day ol MaI(h,2025.)

¶42

rtr^i' (RA[4ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S M P Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S M P Enterprises

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

Smt Yalamanchili Vandhana versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India(e-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Gote Consultants

Sri Mohan Babu Vuppu versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Preet Work Constructions

Akhil Ghanta versus Shriram City Union Finance

Rajesh Janyavula versus Bank of India