Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. M/S Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals.

DRT22 Apr 2025OA/661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte order, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 21,83,272.73 with future interest and costs against five defendants. The claim was secured by a mortgage of properties in the OA schedule.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 21,83,272.73 with future interest and costs; OA claim secured by mortgage of property; Recovery Certificate issued to Applicant.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Lakshmi Kantha Reddy… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I] AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 661 OF 2023

¶4

H DFC Bank Ltd., Having its oFfice at # 1-10-60/3, 3'd Floor, Suryodaya Complex, Begumpet, Secunderabad Manda l, Hyderabad - 500016. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s.Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals., Rep by its Proprietor

¶8

Mr.A.Lakshmi Kantha Reddy, t-292-13, Near Power Office, BC Colony, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District - 5L8t24.

¶9

Mr.A. Lakshmi Kantha Reddy, S/o.Balarami Reddy,

¶10

Aged about 46 Years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s.Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals, R/o. D. No.87l569. Madhava Nagar,

¶11

Near Jaya Hospital, Kurnool District - 518002.

¶12

Also at:-

¶13

Mr.A.Lakshmi Kantha Reddy, Clo.# l-292-73, Near Power Office, B C Colony, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District - 518124.

¶14

Mr.A.Balarami Reddy, S/o.A.Bala Venkata Reddy, Aged about 68 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No. L-292-L3, Near Power Omce, B C Colony, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District - 578724. iw^,"f L-/'.Lt"

¶15

oA.NO.561/2023

¶16

M rs. Konakanti Vijaya laksh mt, Wo.K.Soma Su ndha r Reddy, Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No.87l569, Madhava Nagar, Kurnool District - 518002.

¶17

M/s.Sea Bird Logistics., Office at Sy.No.280/1, Shop No.4, Nirmal Enclave, NH 44, Opp Kattamanchi School, Kallur. Kurnool District - 518003.

¶18

...Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Applicant

¶20

M/s. M.Srinivas Reddy

Defendants

Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.21,83 ,272.73ps from the defendants join y and severally with future interest @1go/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶25

Summons served on Dl, 4 and 5, summons served on D2 through paper publication, whereas summons sent to D3 returned with endorsement refused hence, deemed to be served. They were set ex-parte on 75.02.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined Sumaya Shaik, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11. (*>>'t!2' . ru9

¶27

oA.NO.661/2023

¶28

4- Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶30

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶31

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.661/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum oF Rs.21,83,272.73ps with future interest @10.5%^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt; ffi!'r.s*

¶35

¶36

oA.NO.66u2023

¶37

iii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶38

iv) the applicant bank is entiled for the costs.

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. {Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd Day ofAprit, 2025).

¶42

Yot"'s"u ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. M/S Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. M/S Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals.

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

Smt Jhansi Garikipati Rep by her Gpa Holder G Adiseshaiah versus Hdfc Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aqua Steel

Yes Bank Limited versus Bhupathi Chandu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sanjeev Katiyar

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs.P Geethanjali

Icici Bank Limited versus Sreenidhi Enterprises.