Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Chilamkuri Rajesh

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal order, the adjudicating officer allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 21,65,259.50 plus interest and costs. The defendant appeared in absentia, and the officer held the bank's claim valid based on filed documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 21,65,259.50 plus 10.75% p.a. interest from application date; recovery certificate issued; applicant entitled to costs.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Chilamkuri Rajesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS rHE 25rtr DAY oF JULY' 2025 pRESENT: sH. MMEsHi

¶2

,fl4?JRI%';P,.';fl'^{L LB (Hons} ), M A

¶3

Original Application No: 617 OF 2023

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd.?.1?,:t",.t'j::1f^{omge ar 1 - 1 o-60/3,} ;^ _,. lyr,^, .ruryoctaya^Complex, Eegumpet, Hyderabad _ 500 dl6. Rep. by its Legal Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Chilamkuri Rajesh, S/o.Venkatanaratnam Age 27 Years, Occ: Business R/o, H.No-7-t -632/ t2O/ tO, Bapu Nagar Near Sai Baba Temple, SR Nagar, Hy"aeraOaO Telangana - 500039.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Rio. 203, 115/1 ISB Road Financial District Gachibowli, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad Telangana - 500032.

¶10

Also at:-

¶11

R/o. 521 Main Road, Suravaripalli, prakasam Andhra Pradesh - 523224.

¶12

......Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

: M/s. Srihari Bathina

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

l. The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.21,65,259.50ps towards Loan A/c.No.132093023 from the defendant with future interest @10.75olo p.a. along with interest fu**

¶19

oA.No'617/2023

¶20

@2olo^{p.m. from the date of applicationtill the date of realisation} along^{with costs '}

¶21

Summon^{served on sole defendantand was set ex-parteon} 8.11.2023^{as called absentand no representation'}

¶22

The^{Applicant Bank examined SumayaShaik' Legal Manager as AW-}

¶23

1 and^{marked 05 documentsthrough her as Ex' A'1to Ex' A'05'}

¶24

L Ld, Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passedon} merits.^{Perusedthe materlalplaced on record'}

¶25

¶26

The^{point that arises for consideration is:-}

¶27

Wtlether the^{Applicant Bank is entitledfor} the ctaim^{made in the OA against the} Defendant?

¶28

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remained ex-parte' The Evidence} AffidavitcoupledwiththerecitalsinthedocumentsViz.,Exs.A'1to A.05markedonbehalfoftheApplicantBankclinchestheclaimof theApplicantBankagainsttheDefendant.Hence,Iholdthatthe DefendantisliabletopaytheoAclaimtotheApplicantBankwith future interest and^costs.

¶29

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.617l2023is} allowed as under:^-

¶30

i) The Defendant is^liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.21,65,269.50ps towards^{Loan A/c. No.} 132093023 with future interest @10.75olo^{p.a. simple,} from the date of application till the dqte of realization; .fuo.s

¶31

oA.No.677/2023

¶32

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

¶33

realization of its dues;

¶34

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by nre in the open court on this the 25th day ofluly, 2025) .

¶38

CM,# (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PTTESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Chilamkuri Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Chilamkuri Rajesh

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Milligram Laboratories

Central Bank of India versus Lachu Cement Bricks Unit

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammed Tahir

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)