Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Gurram Penchalaiah

DRT23 Sept 2025OA/85/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Hyderabad allowed Original Application No. 85/2025 filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against Gurram Penchalaiah, holding the defendant liable to pay a sum of Rs. 23,01,492.16 with future interest and costs after rejecting summary. No other precedents were cited or applied.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay Rs. 23,01,492.16 with interest, costs, and proceedings against person and properties for realisation were permitted.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gurram Penchalaiah — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 85 OF 2025

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., H,No.1-10-60/3, 3d Floor Suryodaya Complex, Opp Shoppers Stop Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. Rep. by its Legal Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Gurram Penchalaiah, S/o, Gurram Narasimhulu Age 36 Years, Occ: Pvt. Service, H.No.11-5-216 Flat No.403, 1't Floor, Moosapet, Bharath Nagar Balanagar, Medchal Sangeetha Complex Hyderabad - 500018.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Gurram Penchalaiah, S/o. Gurram Narasimhulu Age 36 Years, Occ: Pvt, Service, C/o.Infosys Limited, Survey No.210, ISB Road, Lingampally RD Manikonda Jagir, Hyderabad - 500032.

¶10

AlFo at:-

¶11

Gurram Penchalaiah, S/o. Gurram Narasimhulu Age 36 Years, Occ: Pvt. Service, Ramalayam Temple, Irlapadu, Marripadu, Nellore - 5243L2.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

: M/s.Lotus Law Associates

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

1 The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,01,4e2.16ps from the aerenoantfiilr!ff interest U'*''

¶19

¶20

OA.No.8s/2025

¶21

@10.35o/o^{p.a. compoundedwith monthly rests from the date of} application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶22

Summons sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement refused hence, deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 12.06.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Adithya, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and^perused the material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

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

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 mar,ked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of \

¶28

the Appli$nt Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant\is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with \

¶29

future interest and costs. I

¶30

In the resul{, the present Original Application No.85/2025 is allowed \

¶31

as under: - \

¶32

¶33

i) The Dei\endant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of \ Rs.23,01,492.16ps with future interest I

¶34

@10.35%^p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of reatization; /}ffiq ' Yb A/^{tt> " '}

¶35

oA.No.85/2025

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

iii) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this^{order to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by^{him, corrected,signedand pronouncedbymein the} open court on this the^{23'd day of September, 2025).}

¶42

/Qps.a (hfMESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Gurram Penchalaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Gurram Penchalaiah

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

Patan Ayub Khan versus Axis Bank

Mrs. Iris Joseph and Others versus M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd. and others

Union Bank of India versus Sri S. Nadeem Shuieb

State Bank of India versus M/S. E.S. Square Infra Tech

M/S. Yes Bank Limited., versus Mrs. Varthya Shiprah

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Ponnambalam Chandra Sheker