Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Md. Zain Uddin

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/815/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against Md. Zain Uddin for recovery of Rs. 25,69,297.52 plus future interest, holding the defendant liable based on examined evidence as the defendant remained absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 25,69,297.52 with future interest at 10.5% p.a. simple; Recovery Certificate issued. Applicant bank entitled for costs.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Md. Zain Uddin — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF^{NOVEN'IBER, 2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.),M.A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 815 OF 2022

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., one of its Branch office at 1-10-60/3, 3'd Floor, Suryodaya Complex, Opp Shoppers Stop, Secunderabad^Mandal Begumpet, Secunderabad District^- 500 016. Rep. by its Legal Manager.

.....Applicant

Versus

Md. Zain Uddin

Age 26 Years, Occ: Private Employee Rlo. 2-4-721 lll, 2nd Floor, Fort^View Colony, Upperpally, Rajendranagar Human Touch Hospital, Hyderabad Telangana - 500048.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Md. Zaln Uddin

¶11

Age 26 Years, Occ: Private EmPloyee C/o. w3 Global Indla Private Limited., Plot No.56, Newmark House Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081.

¶12

......Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : lvl/s. M. V. Kini

¶14

Defendants :Ex-parte

¶15

:: qLLEL ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a^{sum of} Rs.25 ,69 ,297 .52ps as on 24.08.2022 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 cosg/nwy,.Lc\ O/^-$'*

¶17

OA.No.815/2022

¶18

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex_parte on 06.01.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Aditya A S, Legal Manager as AW_1 and marked 05 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

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

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05 marked on behalf of the Appticant Bank clinches the ctaim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hotd that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.815/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs.25,69,297.52ps with future interest @10.5olo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

ii) the applicant bank is also enti ed to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues; Y,*"6

¶27

OA.No.815/2022

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

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 19th day of November, 2025).

¶32

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Md. Zain Uddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Md. Zain Uddin

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

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