Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Gudur Santosh Reddy

DRT17 Jul 2025OA/449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank for recovery of Rs. 27,70,834.98 plus 11% p.a. interest from an ex-parte defendant. The court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed sum, costs, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed granting liability to pay principal sum with future interest at 11% p.a., applicable costs, directed issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gudur Santosh Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 77IH DAY OF ]ULY, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB. (HonS,), IvI.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No:449 OF 2O2Z

¶3

H DFC BanK Ltd., One-of its Branch office at 1_ 10_60/3, r flooT, 5uryodaya Complex. Opp Shoppers Stop, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 5OO 016. Rep. by its Legal Manager.

¶4

...Applica nt

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gud ur Santosh Reddy S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy Guduru Age 40 Years, Occ: private Service F.NO.302, H. No.15-86, Ven kateshwara .l.owers,^{Street No.3, AmruthaColony} Hyderabad, Tela nga na _ 500039.

¶7

Also at:-

¶8

Gud ur Santosh Reddy C/o, Teamlease Services Ljmited Indusind Bank Buldg patik Adda Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana _ 500016.

¶9

.... .. Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Defendants

¶11

I,4/s. Lotus Law Associates Ex-parte

¶12

:: oRDER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.27,70,834.98ps from the defendant with future interest xr]y]J$-., \a /'-:<S;'-

¶14

¶15

OA.No.449/2022

¶16

@11%^{p.a. compoundedwlth monthlyrests from the date} of apptication^{till the date of realisation alongwith costs'}

¶17

Summon was set^{served ex-parte on sole defendant on 08 03 2023 through as called absent paperpublication and andno} rePresentation.

¶18

The 1 and Applicant^{marked 09 Bank documents examined throuqh her SumayaShaik' as Ex Legal A l lvlanager as AW-to Ex A'09'}

¶19

Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passed on} merits.^{Perusedthe materialplaced on record'}

¶20

The^{point that arises for considerationis:-}

¶21

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

¶22

As stated^{supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte The Evidence} Affidavit^{coupledwiththe recitalsln the documents viz ' Exs A'1 io} A'ogmarkedonbehalfoftheApplicantBankclinchestheclaimof the Applicant^{Bank againstthe Defendant Hence' I hold that the} DefendantisliabletopaytheoAclaimtotheAppliCantBankWith future^{lnterest and costs'}

¶23

In the^{result, the present Origlnal ApplicationNo 44912022is} atlowed^{as under: -}

¶24

the APPIicant^{Bank a}

¶25

i) The^{Defendantis liable to PaY to} total sum of^{Rs.27,70,83498PS} with future^interest @110/o^p.a. rrfff,,f2.;d_!)e4f^{apprication till the} ',1^pr",

¶26

date of^realization i O,' '' '^{' -}

¶27

OA.No.449l2022

¶28

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file 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, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17rh day of .July, 2025) .

¶33

OY**o (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Gudur Santosh Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Gudur Santosh Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Tirumala Projects Rep. by Its Managing Partner

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S. Finexperts Advisory Services Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Shree Viraj Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus Boya Rajashekar

Bank of Baroda versus Panasa Deepthi

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Kalpavruksha Enterprises