Allowed

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Syed Amer Ahmed

DRT19 Jun 2026OA/118/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

,Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED against two defendants for recovery of a debt of Rs. 22,21,272.37 future interest and costs claiming the defendants are liable to pay the claimed amount along with future interest from the date of application till the date of realization and the application was set ex-parte. The defendant

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 22,21,272.37 with future interest @ 16% p.a. simple from date of application; entitled to proceed against defendants' properties and costs.

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Syed Amer Ahmed — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{19THDAY OF JUNE, 2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SH,^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM. L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGJNAL APPLICATION^{NO: 118 OF 2026}

¶5

IDFC FIRST BANK^LIMITED EARLIER M/S CAPITAL^{FIRST LIMITED} Door No. 6-3-354,^{2nd floor,} S B TOWERS,^{Near Nagarjuna circle;} Banjara hills Road^{No.1,Hyderabad - 500034}

¶6

Rep. by its Authorized^{Representative}

¶7

.....Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

SYED AMER^AHMED S/O SYED CHAND^I\4IYA AGED ABOUT 31^{YEARS,OCC:BUSINESS}

¶10

I\4OHAMMAD AKTHARI^BEGUN4 W/O ABDUL ]ALEEL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,^OCC:BUSINESS

¶11

Both are R/o: H. No.10-3-291/4,^{2nd Floor,} Vijaya Nagar Colony,^{Near Play Ground} Hyderabad 500028

¶12

And also at: Rl o. 72-4-47 13,^{Murshadgadda,} Siddipet, Medak-⁵⁰²¹⁰³

¶13

... Defenda nts

¶14

Counsel for the^APP|icant : M/s. V. Santosh

¶15

Counsel for the^Defendants ,e*-oa*ei/t$bt\

¶16

oA.NO.118/2026

¶17

:: ORDER ::

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 22,21,272.37 ps from defendants 1 & 2 joinfly and severally with future interest @ 24o/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization atong with costs.

¶19

Summon served on Defendants 1 & 2 through paper pu blicatjon

¶20

and were set exparte on 77.06.2026 as called absent and no

¶21

representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Akash Ghosh, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 12 documents through them as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12.

¶23

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the material placed on record.

¶24

5, The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶25

Whether the Appticant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz.. Exs.A.1 to A.12 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with futun-. interest u"O rot r'frfir,

¶27

oA.NO.118/2026

¶28

In the result, the^present Original Application No.118/2026 is allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 22,2t,272.37^ps with future interest @^{160/o p.a.} simple^from the^{date of} application till the date of realization;

¶30

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

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to^{file Cost} Memo within 2 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 i4 fte open court on this the 19th Day of June,^2026). flffi***

¶35

(RAIVTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Syed Amer Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Limited v. Syed Amer Ahmed

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 Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Voodi Sravani

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., versus M/s. Fast Dot

Bank of Baroda versus Raj Trading

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Malgi Reddy Govardhan Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Vijeka Logistics Pvt. Ltd.