Allowed

Idfc First Bank Limited Now v. Sachin Sports Point

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/518/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by IDFC First Bank Limited against Sachin Sports Point for recovery of a debt of approximately Rs. 22 lakh with future interest and costs after the defendant remained absent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 22,13,465.23 with future interest at 17.50% p.a. simple; permission for recovery proceedings; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Idfc First Bank Limited Now versus Sachin Sports Point — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TI DAY OF NOVEIVIBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 518 OF 2025

¶4

IDFC First Bank Limited "Now" Earlier M/s. Capital First Limited., Door No.6-3-354,znd Floot, S B Towers Near Nagarjuna Circle, Banjara Hills Road No.1, Hyderabad - 500034. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sachin Sports Point., Rep by Hamilpur Trilok Raj, S/o.H.Rameshwar Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Business R/o. Shop No.2l 22 23, Upper Ground Floor 4 1 327 lo 337, Abids, Near Sagar Plaza Hyderabad - 500001.

¶8

.... .. Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applica nt : Mr. V. Santosh

¶10

Defendants :Ex-parte

¶11

:: CLLLEL ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a^{sum of} Rs.22,73,465.23ps as on 02.04.2025 from the defendant^with future interest @24o/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant and was set^{ex-parte on} 01.09.2025 as called absent and^{no reDlesentation.} /lWr*

¶14

¶15

oA.No.518/2025

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Akash Ghosh, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.518/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs.22,13,465.23ps with future interest @17.50o/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its d ues;

¶24

iii) the applicant bank is entifled tor rn",ffff;,, ,.L ////\ '/'^'\ t-.,.

¶25

¶26

OA.No.518/2025

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

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 19rh day of November, 2025).

¶30

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Idfc First Bank Limited Now v. Sachin Sports Point

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Limited Now v. Sachin Sports Point

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sree Vmk Hotels

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Renuka Steel and Hardware

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mythri Techno Solutions Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Gangaram Krishna Reddy

Canara Bank versus M/s. Faheem Plastics.

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy