Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Geetha Traders

DRT11 Sept 2025OA/677/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the bank's original application under S. 19 RDB Act for recovery of dues and scheduled assets. The court held that defendants' contentions regarding moratorium interest were unproven as they failed to produce RBI rules or evidence of timely post-moratorium payments. The bank was declared entitled to interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay total sum of Rs. 1,23,22,844.59 with simple interest at 8.5% per annum from date of application till realisation.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Geetha Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN1ESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 677 OF 2022

¶6

HDFC BanK Ltd. 1-10-60/3,3d Floor 4A Suryodaya Complex Begumpet, Hyderabad-16.

¶7

.......Applica nt.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Geetha Traders t6-2-747/4/Cl4 Anand Nagar, Malakpet

¶10

Hyderabad-36.

¶11

Also at: 76-2-L46/29/3 Dayanand Nagar Beside Chinnamma Towers Malakpet, Hyderabad-36.

¶12

Mrs. Geetha Rani Bajaj t6-2-746/29/3 Dayanand Nagar Beside Chinnamma Towers Malakpet, Hyderabad-36.

¶13

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bajaj t6-2-747 /4/Cl4 Anand Nagar, Malakpet Hyderabad-36.

¶14

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bajaj 76-2-747/4/Cl4 Anand Nagar, MalakPet Hvderabad-36. /D<"

V rurloi-'

-41.*

oa.67712022

N'lrs. Nrmala Devi Bajaj 76-2-14714/C/4 Ana nd Nagar, lYa lakpet Hyderabad-36.

¶20

lvlrs. Meena Kumari Bajaj t6-2-747/4lC/4 Anand Nagar, Malakpet Hydera bad-36.

¶21

..... Defendants.

¶22

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defendants

¶23

Mr. 14. Srinivas Reddy. Ivlr. Abhishek Bhutada.

¶24

:: ORDER::

¶25

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.1,08,97,391.87Ps (Rs.90,21,473.87Ps towards A/c No. 824977L6 and Rs.18,75,918/- towards A/c No.8628855) joinuy and severally from defendants 1to 6, and Rs.14,25,452.72Ps ( Rs.4,18,238.36Ps towards Alc No.46822195 and Rs. 10.07,214. 36Ps towards Al c No.4927 3289) from defendant No.2; totalling to Rs.1,23,22,844.59Ps, with future interest @18o/o^per annum from the date of filing the OA till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule assets.

¶26

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that 1st defendant proprietary concern is the borrower. Defendants 2 to 6 are the co-borrowers with defendant No.2 being the proprietor of 1st defendant concern. Defendants availed a loan against property for an amount of Rs.1,03,60,000/- vide loan agreement dated 23.03.2017. Defendants 2 and 4 to 6 deposited the title deeds of OA schedule properties belonging to them. Defendant No.2 avaited Auto Lggn of Rs-.9,70,590/- in ,/,^/ttt^,, <.)

¶27

// /<intct'_/

¶28

oa.67712022

¶29

2077 and business loan of Rs.20,00,000/-^{in 2018. All the} three loans are repayable in EMIs along^{with interest as} stipulated in respective loan agreement.^{Defendants availed} moratorium on EMIS as^per the^{RBI guidelines applicable during} the Covid.19 Pandemic, followed by^{restructuringof the loans} under RBI approved restructuring^plan 2.0.^Thereafter, defendants committed defaults in^{repayment despiterepeated} follow-ups. The account was declared as^{NPA on 05.06.2021,} followed by recall notice dated 04.07.2022. Since^the defendants falled to discharge the liability,^{the presentOAls} filed.

¶30

Defendants filed written statement. It is the^contention of^the defendants that the applicant bank^{chargedinterest during the} extended moratorium^period from^{lvlarch 2021 to February} 2022 which is against the relief^{policy granted} by^the Government. Since the moratorium^{was grantedtill February,} 20?2, the defendants are not only exempted from^payingEMIS during the^period, applicant bank^is also not^entitled to^charge interest during the said^period. Defendants started^maklng repayments from May 2022 and the last such^{payment was in} lYay 2023. The account-wise outstanding amount as well as the total outstanding dues of all the four accounts as^on 07.07.2022 do not match with the statements of account^filed by the applicant bank. After completion of the moratorium period, defendants were making the payments in a timely manner. Calling upon the entire credit facilities vide recall notlce dated 04.07.2022 is nothing but a wrongful act. The OA is not maintainable as the^person signing the OA as the Board Resolution filed by the applicant bank is signed by Senior Vice President-Legal but not by the Director of th e aoarO//\^n$ 17^{-s'!^}

¶31

¶32

oa.677lZO22

¶33

The Applicant Bank examined Sumaya Shaik, Manager (Legal), as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.19.

¶34

The defendants, right of adducing evidence was forfeited for non-representation vide docket order dated 77.06.2025.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant reported no oral arguments. Defendants, right to advance arguments was forfeited for non-representation vide docket order dated 3L.07.2025.^perused the written arguments filed by the applicant bank and the material placed on record.

¶36

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶37

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the OA claim against the Defendants 1 to 6 and the OA schedule assets as prayed for?

¶38

The main grievance of the defendants is about charging interest during moratorium period. However, defendants have not given any specific entry allegedly related to the interest charged during the moratorium period nor placed on record the relevant. RBI rules governing the field under Restructure plan 2.0 under which the applicant bank is barred from charging interest during the moratorium period. According to applicant bank, defendants availed the restructuring plan 2.0 by way of extension of moratorium from March 2021 to February ZO2Z. fhe reschedulement is subject to terms and conditions stipulated for the purpose. One such condition is that in the event of default, defendants are liable to pay overdue interest and other charges. It is not the case of the defendants that they have not /4v1",+q U'/^- "'"

¶39

oA.57712022

¶40

defaulted in repayment. In para 12 of written statement, defendants stated that they were making the^payments timely in the post moratorium^period. However, defendants have not placed any material or the detalls of EMIS paid in support of their pleadings. It is settled law that any amount of^pleadings without supportlng evidence is of no avail.

¶41

¶42

Another contention of the defendants is that the outstanding dues claimed in the OA is not correct. Accordlng to^the defendants, the outstanding dues as on Ol.O7.2022 works out to Rs.1,18,54,732.30Ps but not Rs.1,23,22,844.59Ps as claimed in the OA. This contention is not supported by any reconclliation of account between the applicant's claim and defendants figures. In the first place, the statement of account filed by the applicant bank does not show any debit or credit entry as on 07.07.2022. As a matter of random check, I have verified the statement of account pertaining to the loan account No. 82497176. The amount of Rs.A7,92,473.42Ps^pertaining to the loan account of 82497776 shown in para 12 of written statement^pertains to the dues outstanding as on 07 -04.2022. Therefore, this contention is not based on any factual aspect and therefore, needs no consideration. As stated supra, defendants did not choose to adduce evidence or to cross examine the AW.1 to disprove the authenticity and correctness of the contents in Exhibits A.1 to A.19 produced by the applicant bank. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavlt of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A. 1 to A.19 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that defendants 1 to 6 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to-.tie ApplLcant Bank with future interest and costs. //M-gt| (t/^\

¶43

¶44

g A.677/2022

¶45

In the result, the present Original Application No.677/2022 is

¶46

allowed as under: -

¶47

i) the defendants 1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the apptitant 6ank a total sum of Rs.1,09,97,391.87p; (Rs,.90,2I,473.87ps plus ns.ig,zS,gfg/_); and defendant No.z is liable to pay to'the applicant bank a total sum of \s.t !,1!,!sz.tzcs^{(Rs.4,18,238.36psptus} Rs.10,07,214.36ps) along with interest @B.B5o/o per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶48

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage/ hypothecation of assets described i; th; schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶49

iii) the applicant bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants 1 to 6 for reaiization of Rs.1,08,97,391.87ps and against the person and property of defendant No.2 for realisation of Rs. 14,25,4 52.72ps; and

¶50

v) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶51

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

¶52

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶53

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

¶54

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of September, 2025).

¶55

', r-. - ..^{, 1...' ,'} (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Geetha Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Geetha Traders

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

Kiran Kumar Kondaru versus Hdfc Bank

Chand Pasha versus M/s.Cholamandal Investments and Finance Co.Ltd

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mtd Distributors

parameswarboilers versus Icici Bank Limited

M/S. Uco Bank versus Kamareddy Engineering College

M/S. Uco Bank versus Tarakarama Educational Society