Allowed

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Bharat Oil Company

DRT24 Sept 2025OA/303/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Original Application No.303/2023 filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim against the defendants for a loan default. The court held that the defendants are liable to pay the claimed amount with interest, relying on unchallenged evidence of the loan account becoming NPA.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 22,57,695.46 plus future interest; bank entitled to proceed against vehicle and properties of defendants for realization of dues.

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bharat Oil Company — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

Ivlls. HDFC Bank Ltd. 1-10-60/3,3rd Floor 4A Suryodaya Complex Begumpet, Hyderabad_16 Rep by its Authorised Signatory.

¶5

.......Appticant.

¶6

And

¶7

Bharat Oil Company Rep by Thoudisetty Narasimha Rao H_ No. 16-4-18, Bharat oit company West Fort, Warangal Urban Warangat H.O. 506 OO2.

¶8

Thoudisetty Narasimha Rao S/o Sudarshan Rao Thoudisettv Age: 60 years, Occ: Business H. No. 23-6-777, Hunter Roaad Sai Baba Poultry Farm Hanamkonda, Warangal-506 001.

¶9

..... Defenda nts.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Dr. M. P. Kashyap

¶11

Counsel for the Defendants : Mr. K. Nishanth Kumar.

¶12

:: oRDER::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,57,695.46Ps with further interest @9*4olo fel annum

¶14

(t/''*"

¶15

oA.303/2023

¶16

from the^{defendantsfrom the date of Application till the date of} realisation^{and sale of OA schedule vehicle'}

¶17

The averments^{of applicant bank as per the OA' briefly'are;} defendantsavailedloanforpurchaseofcommercialvehicle. Defendants^{hypothecatedthe vehicle as a security towardsthe} loan.However,defendantneglectedtorepaythesamedespite availing^{Covid Pandemic relaxationsThe loan accounthas} become^{NPA. Applicant bank issued legal noticedated} 23.12'2022^{but the covers were returned'As the defendants}

¶18

failed^{to clear the dues,the present OA is filed'}

¶19

J. Defendants^{filed writenstatement admitting availment of loan} facility.^{Sue to hospitalisation of the defendant for over six} months,^{there was some defaultin payment of EMis The} applicant^{bank took possessionof hypothecatedvehicle worth} Rs.20,OO,OOO/-^{and sold for Rs 1O'OO'OOO/-in an auction' The} OA is barred^{by limitation'Appllcantfiled the presentoA} Withoutissuinganynoticeleaveaparttheallegedlegalnotice. Defendant^{was unnecessarily draggedinto the litigation'}

¶20

In order^{to prove its case, the Applicant Bank examinedV'} Pavan Kumar,^{Manager-Legal as Aw-1 andmarked} 5 documents^{through himas Exs A l to Ex A 5'}

¶21

In^{order tosubstantiate their defence'DefendantNo'2} examined^{himselfas DW'1 but marked no documents'}

¶22

Learned^counsel for appllcant^{bank prayedthat ordersmaybe} on records.^{Defendants'right to advance}

¶23

passed based been forfeited^{for non-representalionvidg^}

¶24

arguments^has N"*

¶25

oA.3O3/2021

¶26

docket order dated 16.07.2025. Perused the material placed on record.

¶27

The point that arlses for consideration is:-

¶28

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

¶29

Admittedly, defendants committed default repayment of loan. Defendants alleged that applicant bank took the possession of the hypothecated vehicle and disposed it of much below the market value. There is no whisper from the applicant bank about the disposal of the hypothecated vehicle. On the other hand, applicant bank prayed for an order to sell the hypothecated vehicle. Under these facts and circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.5 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶30

In the result, the present Original Application No.303/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a total sum of Rs.22,57,695.46Ps, less the sale proceeds of hypothecated vehicle if any, along with interest @9.44o/o per annum simple from the date of application till the date of rcalization;/,M{f,

¶32

oA.3Otl2O2t

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by way^of hypothecation of vehicle described in^the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^{proceedagainst} the same (if not disposed), for^{realisation of} its dues;

¶34

iii) applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and^propertiesof defendants for realization of its^{dues; and}

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the^costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

t2. Communicate a copy of this order to^the parties concerned and upload in official Web Site.

¶39

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24rH day of September, 2025.)

¶40

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Bharat Oil Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Bharat Oil Company

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 Gurram Penchalaiah

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kazi Tajamul Hussain

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gaajula Nagaraju

Sree Mayukha Educational Society versus Hdb Financial Services

Dsr Rural Farmers Warehouse and Others versus Union Bank of India