Allowed

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now v. Ghrinesh Bhagia

DRT4 May 2026OA/1021/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by IDFC First Bank Limited for recovery of Rs.26,19,356.32 plus future interest and costs against the defendant, who remained ex-parte. The claim was admitted based on uncontradicted documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

The defendant was directed to pay Rs.26,19,356.32 with future interest at 15% p.a., costs, and be liable for recovery proceedings.

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now versus Ghrinesh Bhagia — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O4TII DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAN1ESHWAR KoTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 1021 OF 2025

¶4

IDFC First Bank Limited "Now" Earlier M/s. Capital First Limited., Door No.6-3-354, 2rd Floor, S B Towers Near Nagarjuna Circle, Banjara Hills Road No.1, Hyderabad - 500034. Rep. by its Authorised Representative.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ghrinesh Bhagia, S/o. NJ Bhagia Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Business Flat No.11, Floor 5, Meenakshi Tower Road No.12, Khairatabad, Ba njara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034.

¶8

. Defend a nt

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. V. Santosh Defendants : Ex-parte

¶10

:: ORDER ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.26,19,356.32ps as on 04,O9.2025 from the defendant with future interest @24o/o p.a. with monthly interests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶12

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 28.04.2026 as called absent and no representation. 'r'1.. ,t'

¶13

OA.No.102rl2025

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined Akash Ghosh, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.09.

¶15

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the materia I placed on record.

¶16

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶17

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

¶18

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.09 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶19

In the result. the present Original Apptication No.102112025 is allowed as under: -

¶20

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.26,19,356.32ps with future interest @15olo p.a. simple, from the date of application ti the date of realization;

¶21

ii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶22

iii) the applicant bank is entiued For the costs.

fiffn'r

OA.No.1021/202s

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

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcrihpd by him, corrected, oagr"J rnd pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of May,2026l.

¶29

Qrya (MMESHWAR KOTHE)

¶30

(MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now v. Ghrinesh Bhagia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now v. Ghrinesh Bhagia

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharath Gas Gramin Vitrak

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Suneetha Jidagam

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Pratyusha Mohanram

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Valli Silks.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vk Warehousing Enterprises

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now versus Bsa Gold and Diamonds Private Limited