Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Nadida Ipathi Reddy

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery loan dues, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim. Finding the bank's evidence regarding the loan, default, and vehicle sale unchallenged by the respondents, the Tribunal ordered payment of the outstanding amount with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay the outstanding balance of the loan with future interest, costs, and a Recovery Certificate was issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Nadida Ipathi Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-I]AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE^{25THDAY OF JUNE. 2026}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), 14.A.}

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application No:^{185 OF 2023}

¶5

I"I/S. HDFC BANK^LTD., 1-10-60/3, 3rd Floor,⁴⁴ Suryodaya Complex, Begumpet, Hydera bad -500016. Re[: By Its Authorized Signatory

¶6

....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

NADIDA IPATHI REDDY S/O, JALENDHAR Age: 41 Years, Occ:^Business H.NO t2/29/29/s RA]SUK NAGAR,^NAGARAN4, RAMPALLY CROSS^ROADS HYDERABAD^- 5OOOB3

¶9

NADIDA ARUNA W/O. NADIDA IPATHI^REDDY Age: 36 Years, Occ:^Business H.NO 72-29/29/s RA]SUK NAGAR,^NAGARAM, RAI4 PALLY CRODD ROADS HYDERABAD- 5ooo83

¶10

... Defenda nts

¶11

Counsel fortheApplicant :Dr. M P Kashyap : Mr. R.V Subba^Rao Counsel for Defendant^{Nos.1 & 2}

¶12

:: ORDER::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed^{the present OA for the recovery of a} sum of Rs. 33,89,232.75^{ps from the Defendants1 & 2 jointly and} severally with future^{interest@ 8,99olop.a. with monthly restsfrom}

¶14

OA No.18s/2023

¶15

2ofS

¶16

the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs, and in default, sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶17

The averments of the Applicant Bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that the Applicant Bank sanctioned a commercial loan of Rs. 39,95,90O/- to the defendants, wherein the defendants created a charge by way of hypothecation in favour of the Applicant. During the COVID period, a 3-month moratorium was also provided, but the defendants continued to default in repayment of the loan, due to which the account was classified as an NPA, and later a demand notice was issued to the defendants on 19.12,2022, and the Applicant Bank was constrained to approach this Tribunal for recovery of outstanding dues.

¶18

The 1't and 2nd Defendants filed a written statement. The averments therein, briefly, are that the 1st Defendant is the spouse of the 2nd Defendant and admits to having availed of a commercial vehicle loan and created a charge via hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants aver that they were never intimated regarding the classification of the account as NpA nor received any demand notices. The Defendants assert that the Applicant Bank failed to take symbolic possession of the movable property and failed to follow the procedure under Section 14 of the Act. The Defendants aver that the Applicant Bank sold ofF the vehicle via auction, however, the Bank failed to provide details of the auction purchaser, reserve price, valuation report, etc. The Defendants assert that the Applicant Bank approached the 1't Defendant to sign documents to be filed before the RTO and allege collusion between the Applicant Bank and the auction purchaser to sell off the property at a lesser price. The Applicant alleges violation of the provisjens of the SARFAESI Act and /4\\-'' '\ /^{/.// '-''.g.D'*}

¶19

OA No.185/2023

¶20

3of5

¶21

the Rules framed thereunder, as the^{averments and claims} thereunder are false and fabricated,^{and raise concerns regarding the} non-issuance of the demand notice,^{sale notice, and paper publication} of the sale notice as^mandated under^{the prescribed provisions of} SARFAESI. With these contentions, the^{Defendants pray for dismissal} of the oA.

¶22

In order to^prove its case, Applicant^{Bank examined by Adithya} AS, Legal lvlanager as AW-1 and marked 6^{documents throughher as} Exhibits A-1 to A-6.

¶23

To substantiate his case, 1't defendant^{Nadida Ipathi Reddy} examined himself as DW-1 and^{marked no documents.}

¶24

Both Learned Counsel for the^{ApPlicantand Learned Counsel for} the Defendants reported^{no oral arguments.Learned counsel for the} Applicant Bank filed written arguments^{as per libertygranted.} Perused the same along with the^{material brought on record.}

¶25

According to learned counsel,^{1st defendant wassanctioneda} loan of Rs.39,95,900/- for^{purchase of commercialvehicle,2nd} defendant stood as^guarantor. Both^{executed necessary loan and} hypothecation documents.^{Despite repeatedreminders and demand} notice, defendants failed to^{regularize the account. Consequently the} applicant bank sold the^{hypothecated vehicle on 17.10.2023. Alter} adjusting sale^proceeds, there^{is an outstanding of Rs.19.32,580.84} ps. The claim of the bank is amply^proved by the^{evidenceaffldavit of} AW-1 and Exs.A.1 to 6^{markedthrough her and accordinglylearned} counsel sought to allow the^{OA for balanceclrln together with future} /^/ll'tr*,2 interest and costs. /^r<;ot</sup>

¶26

OA No.185/2023

¶27

4of5

¶28

The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶29

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the balance OA claim against the Defendants?

¶30

It is not in dispute that the Defendants availed a commercial vehicle loan. AW-1 has been examined as witness for the applicant bank who marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. Out of these, Ex.A.5 statement of account reflects the defaults in repayment. Except bald denial of receipt of the notices, averring non-compliance of provisions of the SARFESI, sale of hypothecated for lesser value etc., the Defendants neither chose to mark any documents to substantiate their pleas, nor did they choose to cross-examine AW-1 to disprove the veracity of Exs.A.1 to A.6. Under these circumstances, the evidence of AW-1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to 4.6 remains unchallenqed and un-rebutted. Admittedly the hypothecated vehicle was sold by the applicant bank on 17.10.2023 for Rs.17,75,000/-. Accordingty, I hold that defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank the balance claim with future interest and costs and accordingly OA deserves to be allowed.

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.185/2023 is allowed as under: -

¶32

(i) The Defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 33,89,232.75 ps with future interest rate of 8.670/o p.a. simple from the date of application till 76.10.2023; (minus) Rs.17,75,000/- reatized by the applicant bank on 77.70.2023 by sale of hypothecate vehicle; (Add) interest @8.67010 p.a. realization;

OA No.185/2023

5of5

(ii) the applicant is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the Defendants 1 and 2 for realization of its dues; and

¶37

(iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is directed^to file^{Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the partiesconcernedand} upload on the official^website.

¶41

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, siSned and^pronounced by me^{in theopen collrt on} this the 25 5 dav of lune. 2026)

¶42

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Nadida Ipathi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Nadida Ipathi Reddy

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.

Bank of Baroda versus varikuppala prasad

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

Canara Bank versus M/S.Farmdean Hospitality LLP

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma

M/S. Union Bank of India versus Sri M. Anil Kumar