Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. K Manikandan Balamurali

DRT30 Apr 2025OA/279/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for recovery of a loan of Rs.30,52,071.89 filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against defendant Mr. K. Manikandan Balamurali, who appeared ex-parte. Tribunal held claim substantiated by record and document evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendant held liable to pay Rs.30,52,071.89 with future interest @10.75% p.a. and costs. Recovery certificate issued. Applicant directed to file cost memo.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus K Manikandan Balamurali — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 3oth DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Apptication No: 279 OF Z0Zz

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., One of its Branch offlce at 1-10-60/3, 3'd Floor, Suryodaya Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

..,Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. K.Manikandan Balamurali, Aged Major, R/o. H. No.8-2 -3tLl C/2, 2nd Floor, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Vishnu Nivas Building, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034.

¶8

......Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s.Srihari Bathina

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ;:

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.30,52,071.89ps under Loan A/c.No.96995346 from the defendant with future interest @10.750lo p.a. along @2olo p,m. from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶14

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on t7.03.2023 as called absent and no /Xtn. .a

¶15

representation, I/{.tu}.'

¶16

oA,No.27912022

¶17

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Sumaya^{Shaik, Legal Manager as AW-} 1 and ma rked 04 documents^{through her as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.04.}

¶19

Ld. Counsel for^{the ApplicantBank stated orders may be passed on} merits. Perused the^{materialplacedon record'}

¶20

The^point that arlses^{for considerationis:-}

¶21

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled for} the claim made in the^{OA against the} Defendant?

¶22

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence} Affldavit coupled^with the^{recitals in the documents viz.,Exs.A 1 to} A.04 marked on behalf of the^{Applicant Bank clinches the claimof} the Applicant Bank against^{the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the} Defendant is liable to^pay the^{OA claimto the Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.279/2022is} allowed as under:^-

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to^{the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.30,52,071.89ps under^{Loan A/c.No.} 96995346 with future interest @10'7570^{p.a. slmple,} from the date of application till the date^{of realization;}

¶25

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainst} the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶26

iii) the a^pplicant bank is entitled for the costs.

ov.$

OA.No.279l2022

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to fire cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned, (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, iigned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of Aptil,2025) .

¶33

,,.. ,,.-^t'

¶34

'tl'

¶35

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. K Manikandan Balamurali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. K Manikandan Balamurali

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

Sri Devineni Baswa Narendra Babu versus Union Bank of India

Venkat Ram Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Santosh Kumar Gumpanpally versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Vakkuntula Srikanth

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Annapanedi Ramanaiah

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Chimakurthi Nvdss Ram Kumar