Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. Shri. Rama Rao Battu

DRT27 Jan 2026OA/163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by IDBI Bank Limited for recovery of a defaulted housing loan. The Defendant failed to appear and file a written statement, resulting in the forfeiture of his right to defend. The Tribunal verified the claim through examination of the Bank's witness and accepted the documentary evidence, holding the Defendant liable.

What did the court decide?

Principal amount of Rs. 62,78,284.00 with future interest at 24% p.a., costs of the OA, and issue of Recovery Certificate granted.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Shri. Rama Rao Battu — Arbitration | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS REGOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY,2O26

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PREsIDING OFFIcER

¶3

OA. No. 163OF 2024

¶4

Between: lDBl Bank Limited, Branch Office at - Mahabubnagar, Telangana State, Represented by its Manager Applicant VERSUS Shri Rama Rao Battu, S/o. Late Shri Mastan Rao Battu, Aged 60 years, Gender Male, R/o. Falt no. 408, Raj Mansion, Plot No. 8-3-835 & 836, Yetta Reddy Guda, Opp. Water Works Dept, Hyderabad - 500 073 Defendant Counsel for the parties : For The Applicant : K.P. Saradhi For the Defendant . --::{-aei*.' 1 Shri. V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy 't' Reserved on '_o',, "it..-',. ,, .^i,; .,,ii,.. i:,^{-: ;.;,.,} 20.01.2026 i'e}.ti 27.O1.2026 Pronounced on ,',,',P i.,:1 Upload in " "'---"'*-" websitdon z ., 7 28.01.2026 ,,Ail^{,Mfi :} :. J.

(OA. No. 153/2024)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.62,78,284.00 Ps. (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Four Only) with future interest @ 24.000 p.a with monthly rests from the date of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶11

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant availed Housing Loan of Rs.43,17,5001 repayable in 144 equated monthly installments with interest @7.81%^{p.a with monthly rests and executedloan Agreement} dated 31.03.2016 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 31.03.2016 in favor of the Applicant Bank and the Defendant deposited Original Sale deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 01.05.2017 and issued Loan Recall Notice dated 08.03.2022 to the defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstandi4g._.llgnce this OA.

¶12

,.:.:^'..::.. - +..,.-

¶13

$hrirXV.^{'noepesh$.N'ritnar Reddy filed Vakalaton behalfof} .;!' ., I' rii 'i DeTendant.i Even aft6i'ffre lapse of 45 Days WS of Defendant ", 'l:l 7- I .,:,,^?lii , ij 2 . .1. ,,1 'J .-'- :-^r:. #'l,, ' . -r'-- .:1"'"'

¶14

(OA. No. 163/2024)

¶15

not filed and hence the right of^{filingof WS of Defendantwas} forfeited on 1 1 .02.2025.

Sri. Abhishek Naini,^Assistant General^{Manager of the Applicant} Bank examined himself as AW.1^{and exhibitedrelevant} documents, which are^{marked as Ex.A.1 lo 4.12.}

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank.}

¶23

The point that arise for^{consideration is whether the Applicant} bank is entitled for the claim^{made in the OA againstthe} Defendant as^prayed for?

¶24

Defendant did not file his^{WS even after availing sufficient time} and hence the right^{of filingof WS of Defendant was forfeited.} To substantiate the case^{of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officialof} the Applicant Bank was^{examined and he exhibitedrelevant} documents as^{Ex.A.1 to A.12.ln view of the above,I hold that the} Applicant Bank has^{establishedtheir claim made in the OA} against the Defendant^{and hence the Applicant Bank is entitledto} recover the claim made^{in the OA withfuture interest and costs.} ln the result, the^{present OA is allowed with costs, as under:}

¶25

The Defendant is^{liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum} of Rs.62,78,284.00 Ps.^{(Rupees Sixty Two LakhsSeventy} Eight Thousand Two^{Hundred and Eighty Four Only)} with future interest @24.00%o^{p.a from the date of this application} till the date of realization.

¶26

against the Mortgaged of the Property to the

¶27

2 I ,tltt lfin

¶28

(oA. No. L6312024)

¶29

The Applicant Bank is also^{entitled to proceed againstthe} person and properties of defendant towards^{realizationof the} debt due.

¶30

That Applicant Bank is entitled^{to the costs of the OA.}

¶31

The Applicant^{shall file a cost memo withintwo weeks from the} date of receiPt of order.

¶32

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly.}

¶33

Communicate^{a copy of the order to the parties concerned.}

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed^{by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 27th daY^{of Jan' 2026)}

sd/-

(G. GOPICHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

coYX*
^rtsud
t#K,
NNT"I, IIYfrERF,BAD'

Idbi Bank Limited v. Shri. Rama Rao Battu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. Shri. Rama Rao Battu

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Paka Vasantha versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Shushma Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Padmavathi Powerlooms Industry

D Ramesh versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Mr. Banavath Tharun

State Bank of India versus M/S. Max Dental Innovations