Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mr. Teppala Umamaheswara Rao

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/27/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's recovery application ex parte. It held that sufficient evidence was presented to establish the Debt and granted relief for the recovery of the principal amount along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant is liable to pay Rs. 24,50,342.28 plus future interest at 19% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; Request to file cost memo.

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Teppala Umamaheswara Rao — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19rH DAy oF FEBRUARr,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.27 ot 2026

¶4

Between:

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd, Office at #5-9-22/A & s-g_22/L/8, 4th floor, Shapoorji Towers, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad _ 63. Represented by its Authorised signatory

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Teppala Umamaheswara Rao, s/o Y. Suryanarayana, aged about !/.^{years, occ: pvt employee,} R/o Surya Narayana, 934, Ii floor, Road no.25, Bhagath Singh Nagal Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 5OO Obs.

¶9

Also at:

¶10

C/o Accenture Solutions pvt Ltd, Sy.No.115, Waverock building, Fjnancial district, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad - 500 032.

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the parties:

¶13

For the Applican Sri M. Srinivas Reddy For the Defen Exparte % Reserved on $ 18.02.2026 Pronounced 1g rr8 19.02.2026 Uploaded in 20.02.2026

¶14

(oA.No.2712026)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery ofa total sum of Rs.24r5o,342.2gps (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Three Hundred Forty Two and paise Twenty Eight only) with further interest @ 1golo p.a from 12.08.2025 till the date of realization.

¶17

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant availed personal loan with a limit of Rs.29,77,000/_ on 12'02'2023' The defendant executed arrangement letter and personal loan agreement etc in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NpA and recarl notice was issued on 13.0g.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding, Hence this oA.

¶18

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 18.02.2025.

¶19

Ms. Adithya A. S, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as

¶20

AW.1 an ant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1

¶21

to A.Eil.d,"

¶22

1. tI!e' plicant Bank.

¶23

loA.No.27 /2026l

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶25

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed

¶26

for?

¶27

Defendant was set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex,A1 to A.7. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entired to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs,

¶28

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of of Rs.24,50,342.28ps (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Three Hundred Forty Two and paise Twenty Eight only) with further interest @ 1go/o p.a from 12,og.2025till the date of realization,

¶29

9' The Appricant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶31

..tr-
'i*
1 I FrB 2026

¶32

(oA.No.27l2026)

¶33

11' The Appricant sha'fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶34

of receipt of order.

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

Ififli!"ij: ["rll;:ffi.j#* by her, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFTCER

6{
f,P
g * 19 rEB ?fr6 :
W-ffi-{--"9

¶42

TR.UE
1tr 9,,
lsst.
OFT T,

¶43

Hdfc Bank v. Mr. Teppala Umamaheswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mr. Teppala Umamaheswara Rao

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Chetan Textiles

B Sanjiv Rai versus State Bank of India

Sri Katkuri Shesha Reddy versus State Bank of India

Supriya Bandam versus Cholamandalam Investment

Naresh Dairy Farm versus Protium Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durga Prasad Polavarapu