Allowed

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. B Rajaiah

DRT24 Sept 2025OA/898/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under Section 19 of the RBI Act, 1993, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a petition filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against Mr. B. Rajaiah for recovery of a defaulted personal loan of approximately Rs. 26.84 lakhs along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 26,84,015.67 plus interest at 11.25% p.a. The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against judgment debtors and awarded costs.

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. B Rajaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶2

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO, B9B OF 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. 1-10-60/3, 3'd Floor 4A Suryodaya Complex Begumpet, Hyderabad- 16 Rep by its Authorised Signatory. .......Applicant.

¶6

And

¶7

Mr. B. Rajaiah S/o Odelu Bandi 1-6-533, Dayara Market Zamistanpur Near Sitaramaanjaneya Temple Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 Also at: Mr. B. Rajaiah C/o Southern Power Distribution Company Opp: South Circle, C-111, Charminar DIV Greater, Hyderabad-500002.

¶8

Also at: Mr. B. Rajaiah H. No. 5-53, Peddapalli ..... Defendant. Ramagundam-505206. Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan Counsel for the Defendant : Mr. C. Sreedhar.

/W*'\

oa.89812022

:: (LLLqB ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s¹⁹ of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.26,84,01 5,67Ps with further Interest @24yo per annum from the defendant from the date of^Application till the date of realisation.

¶14

The averments of applicant bank as^per the^{OA, briefly, are;} defendant availed a^personal loan of^{Rs.29,91,738/-vide} agreement of loan dated 01.06.2019 and^{thereafter defaulted} in repayment. Despite availed Covid.^Pandemic benefits.^The loan account became NPA and the applicant^{bank issuedlegal} notice dated 05.O9.2022. The legal^{notice was} duly^servedon the defendant as^per the^postal track^{reports/acknowledgment} card. Since the defendant failed to^clear the^{dues, the present} OA is filed.

¶15

Defendant filed written statement admitting^{availment of loan.} However, defendant alleged using^{the blank/printedloan} documents got signed for the^{purpose of filing the presentOA} besides capitalisation of interest^{portionand charginginterest} higher than the RBI regulations.^{The applicantbank has not} given opportunity to^pay the instalments.^{With thesepleadings,} defendants^prayed for^{dismissal of the OA.}

¶16

In order to^prove its^{case, the Applicant Bank examinedV.} 6

¶17

Pavan Kumar, Manager-Legal as^{AW-1 and marked} documents through^{him as Exs. A.1 to Ex. A.6.}

¶18

In order to substantiate^{his defence, Defendant examined} himself as DW.1 but^{marked no} documents. O%"*

¶19

¶20

oa.8sa/2D22

¶21

Learned counsel for applica ounn that orders maybe passed based on records. ,n^t""'"0 derendant ."0;;;;;-f"]'n"d 'o'n'"t^{appearineFor the} Perused the written arguments filed by the o"f -:in:'*"' record. rndant and the material placed on

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

tryhether the Applicant Bank is enti ed f9r the OA ctaim ,5";;;;".;;; Defendant?

¶24

It is not under dispute that the defendant availed loan from applicant bank and committed default in repayment thereafter. Defendant did not choose to adduce evidence nor confront AW.1 by way of cross examination to prove misuse of loan documents and charging of higher rate of interest. Under these circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to 4.6 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Apptication No.898/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) the defendant is liabte to pay to the applicant bank a total sum of Rs.26,84,015.67ps, atong with interest @11.25olo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization; ffit*

¶27

o A'8gsl2o22

¶28

¶29

applicant^{bank is entitledto proceedagainst} ii) the^{personunO ptop"*i"s of defendant for} realization^{of its dues;and} iii)^{the applicant bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶30

The^{Applicant Bank is directed to file CostMemo within2 weeks}

¶31

;;";^{;;" date or receipt or this order'}

¶32

Issue^{Recovery Certificate accordingly'} t2. communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcernedand} upload^{in officialWebSite'} bv me^{in the open court on this the} t,T,::.:::";";"';;n* "no "ono'nced )Ji J.v^{or s"Pt"tber' 2025)}

¶33

(RAMESHwAR \o_Il-E] PRESIDING^OFFICER

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. B Rajaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. B Rajaiah

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gurram Penchalaiah

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kazi Tajamul Hussain

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bharat Oil Company

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gaajula Nagaraju

Sree Mayukha Educational Society versus Hdb Financial Services