Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Mrs.Boadsu Renuka

DRT9 Jan 2025OA/935/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an ex-parte application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. for the recovery of Rs. 21,97,523.51 along with interest and costs from three defendants. The tribunal held the defendants liable for the debt and sanctioned action against their hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 21,97,523.51 plus interest; land to proceed against hypothecated vehicle; realization from properties; costs awarded.

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs.Boadsu Renuka — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE Ogth DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com,, L.LB. (Hons,)/ IY.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 935 OF Z0Z3

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

¶5

Having its oFfice at # 1-10-60/3, 3'd Floor, Suryodaya Complex. Begumpet, Secunderabad Ma ndal, Hyderabad - 500016. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs.Boadsu Renuka, W/o.Swamy, Aged about 26 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.18- 1- 169/2, Gandhi Nagar, Near Govt. School, Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet, Medak District - 502103.

¶9

lvl r. Boadsu Swamy, S/o.Narsaiah, Aged about 35 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 18-1-169/2, Gandhi Nagar, Near Govt. School, Prashanth Naqar, Siddipet, Medak District - 502103.

¶10

M r. Narige Chandraiah, S/o.Balamallu, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-1, Pedda lYasanipa ly, lvledak District - 502372.

¶11

...Defendants

¶12

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

Defendants

: Ex-pa rte

:: qLLE&::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.21,97,523.51ps from the defendants^jointly and

¶17

oA.NO.935/2023

¶18

¶19

severally with future interest @18o/o^{p.a. with quarterlyinterest} from the date of application till the date of^{realizationalong} with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated^vehicle.

¶20

Summons served on D1 and 3, whereas summons sent to^D2 returned with endorsement refused hence, deemed to^be served. They were set ex-parte on 01.05.2024 as^{called absent} and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Sumaya Shaik, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.07 .

¶22

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

¶23

The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and oA hypothecated vehicle?

¶25

6, As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled wlth the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.935/2023 is arrowed as under: - jQryrrt

¶27

oA.NO.935/2023

¶28

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,97,523.51ps with future interest @9.51o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶30

iii) 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 entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, sitned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the ogth Dav ofJanuary,2o25).

¶35

OY**

¶36

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Mrs.Boadsu Renuka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd., v. Mrs.Boadsu Renuka

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

Ms Om Oil and Ginning Industries versus State Bank of India

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Bhat

Baljit Kaur versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus K Sambaiah

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus Gaddam Saritshwar Rao

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M. Balaguri Venkatesh