Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Sri. Tekam Rajendra Yadao

DRT2 Jun 2026OA/228/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an Origin Application by IDBI Bank Ltd against defendants for recovery of a housing loan debt of Rs.40,63,333.49 with future interest and costs. The bank was also allowed to proceed against the mortgaged property and the persons of the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal Rs.30,98,582.49 and top-up loan Rs.9,64,751.00 with future interest @10.20% p.a from 04.11.2025; permission to proceed against mortgaged property and persons of defendants; issua

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Tekam Rajendra Yadao — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{I AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE O2Nd^{DAY OF JUNE,2026}

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶3

OA. No. 228 OF 2026

¶4

Between^:

¶5

lDBl Bank Ltd., H.No. 6-5-83/1, New Bus Stand^Road Bhuktapur, Adilabad, Represented by^{its Assistant General Manager}

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri. Tekam Rajendra^Yadao,

¶9

S/o. Late Gattugi^Yadao, Age 43 years, Occu^EmPloYee'

¶10

Gender Male R/o. Baggi, Akoli,

¶11

Yavtmal, KelaPur,

¶12

Maharastra - 445³⁰²

¶13

Smt. Sampada^{Rajendra Yadao,}

¶14

Wo. Late Gattugi^Yadao,

¶15

Age 38 years, Occu^Housewife,

¶16

Gender Female

¶17

R/o. Baggi, Akoli,

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Zd.-'ffi
iF q!
* ,I
B2JUN2M E.,j
S,*"c#'
w-_ry--},P'

¶20

(oA. No. 22812026)

¶21

Counsel for the parties :

¶22

For The Applicant K.P. Saradhi For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 27.05.2026 Pronounced on 02.06.2026 Upload in website on 02.06.2026

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.40,63,333.49 Ps.^(Rupees Forty Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred^Thirty Three and Paise Forty Nine Only) i.e a sum^of Rs.30,98,582.49 and Rs.9,64,751.00 with^{future rate of interest} @10.20%^{p.a with monthlyrests from 04J1.2025till the date} of realization and in default for^sale of^{MortgageProperty as} mentioned in the Schedule of Property I^{to OA.}

¶25

As per the averments in the application,^{the Applicant Bank} states that Defendants availed Housing^{loan of Rs.30,00'000/-} 240 equated monthly installments of^Rs.23,439/- @7.10%^{p.a and executed Home Loan Agreement} .2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank.^The Rs.9,50,000/availed top up loan facility of 0 2 JuPetr?fda*

Sut}s$'

(OA. No. 228l2026)

repayable in 200 equated monthly installments of Rs.9,896/with interest @10.20o/o p.a and executed Home Loan Agreement dated 22.06.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created equitable mortgaged morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property I to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 02.06.2022 and deposited original Sale deeds dated 25.05.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence^{the applicantbank} classified the account as NPA on 08.10.2025^{and issuedLoan} Recalled Notice dated 06.11.2025^{to the defendants. lnspiteof} several requests and demands, the^{defendantsdid not clear the} outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants called absent^{and set exparte on 27.05.2026.}

¶31

Mr. B. Rajsekhar, Assistant^{General Manager of the Applicant} Bank examined himself as^{AW.1 and exhibitedrelevant} documents, which^{are markedas Ex.A.1to A.12.}

¶32

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

¶33

The point that arise for^{consideration is whether the Applicant} Oant<.is entitled for the claim^{made in the OA againstthe} Defenddntb as PraYed^for?

¶34

(oA. No. 22812026)

¶35

¶36

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.12. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶37

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under^:

¶38

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are^jointly and severally^{liable to} pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.40,63,333.49 Ps. (Rupees Fofi Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three and Paise Forty Nine Only) i.e a sum of Rs.30,98,582.49 and Rs.9,64,751.00 with future rate of^interest @10.20Yo^{p.a from 04.11.2025 till the dateof realization.}

¶39

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against^the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of^the Property I to the OA towards realization of the debt^due.

¶40

nt Bank is entitled to^proceed against the^person es of Defendants No. 1 and 2 towards realization i'r{F * x 4

¶41

(oA. No. 22812026)

¶42

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

¶43

The Applicant shall file a^{costmemo within two weeks from the} date of receipt of order.

¶44

lssue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed^{by her, corrected' signed and pronounced by me in the opencourt on} this the O2"d day^{of Jun, 2026)}

¶47

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) SIDING OFFICER

¶48

fr:^ffi

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Sri. Tekam Rajendra Yadao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Sri. Tekam Rajendra Yadao

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

Bank of India versus Mr. Pathan Mahaboob Subhani

Sai Roshini Dendukuri versus State Bank of India

J Surender versus Union Bank of India

Panyala Pushpalatha and Another versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Services Corporation Limited

J Mukund versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bellatrix Wagon Traders