Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Tadem Lingaiah

DRT11 Aug 2025OA/848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 848/2023 filed by Bank for recovery. It held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 34.21 lakh plus future interest and costs. The claim, secured by mortgage of OA Schedule property, was realised. Defendants were ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 34,21,285.10 with 10% p.a. interest, costs, and OA claim secured by mortgage of scheduled property.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Tadem Lingaiah — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN^{THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDEMBAD} DATED^{THIS THE11THDAY OF AUGUST, 2025} PRESENT:^{sH RAMESHWARKorH&FrSEI' L LB' (Hons )' M'A'}

¶2

ORIGINAL^{APPLiCATIONNo: 848 OF 2023}

¶3

[d[ iltf,{.:.:,",#ffi^{:i:" 0 *} ", H""i"r" nlrri,^{itvderabad - s00034} .....APPlicant. nep. OY^{rts AuthorizedSignatorY'}

¶4

Versus

¶5

Mr. Tadem^{Lingalah, s/o'sriRajaiah} Aoed about^{52 Years, Occ: Farmer} n/o. H.No.^{1- 1-11 7} I^{51 3lE,Bansilal} Naoar Colony,^{Budvel, Rajendranagar} naiga ReddY^District -^500030'

¶6

Mrs. Tadem^{Anjail Devi, W/o.Lingaiah} Aged about^{49 Years, Occ: Housewife} R7o. H.No. 1-1-1¹⁷ /5/3/E,^Bansilal Nagar Colony,^{Budvel, Rajendranagar} Ranga Reddy District -^500030.

¶7

Mr.Bariga Naresh,^{S/o. RajamallaiahBariga} Aged about 35 Years, Occ:^Business Rlo.H.No.L-27-27 8. Near^{AdityaHospital} Indira Nagar, Lothkunta,^{Secunderabad-500015.}

¶8

... Defendants

¶9

: M/s. M.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for.the Applicant

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Eank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.34,21,285.1ops from the dqendants^jointly and o'K*

oA.NO.848/2023

severally with 616o7o p.a. from 16.06.2023 in Cash Credit & DOD Loan Facilities the statement date to the date of award/decree and thereafter @18% p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶18

Summons served on D1 and 2, whereas summons served on D3 through paper pubrication. They were set ex-parte on 74.06.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined D.Suresh, Deputy Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶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 entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶23

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^{ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the^Defendants' Hence, I hold that the Defendants^{are jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the OA claim to the^{Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs. ffin

¶24

oA.NO.848/2023

¶25

¶26

In the result,^{the present Original Application No'848/2023is} allowed^{as under: -}

¶27

The Defendants^{are jointly and severally}

¶28

i) liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.34,21,285'10ps^{with future interest} @10% P.a'^{simPle from the dateof} application^{till the date of realization;}

¶29

ii) the OA claim^{is securedby way of mortgage} of property^{described inthe schedule} annexed to the^{OA and the applicant bankis} entitled to^{proceedagainstthe same to} realise its debt;

¶30

ili) the applicant^{bank is also entitled to proceed} against the^person and^{properties of} defendants for^{realization of its dues;}

¶31

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶32

B. The Applicant Bank^{is directed to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt^{of this Order.}

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly'

¶34

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 11'h Day of^{August, 2025).}

¶35

\i,o*^.-., rt (.rs "'

¶36

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Tadem Lingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Tadem Lingaiah

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

Sri Bandla Ganesh Babu versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Sri Venkata Sai Traders

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Biogene Seed Sciences Private Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Narendra Kumar Palacholla

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Ankathi Satyamaiah

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus M/S. Crystal Technologies