Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy

DRT9 Jul 2026OA/304/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 92.44 Lakhs from commercial vehicle loan accounts. The Tribunal held that the bank established its claim through evidence and orders the defendants to pay the amount with interest and the bank to issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 92,44,831.87 with interest @11.08% p.a. from 01.07.2025. Principal entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and issue recovery certificate.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE Ogth DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRt cUMMAD| cOptCHAND, pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 304 OF 2026

¶4

Between ; HDFC Bank Limited, 4th Floor, Shapoorji Towers, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad-500063 Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy Occ. Business, Age - 45 years, Male H No. 1-17-230, Mailoor, Mailoor Road, Bidar, Karnataka-585401 Also at: Plot No 13, Ground Floor, Tripura Enclave, Teachers Colony, Ameenpura, Hyderabad, Telangana-502032 2. Mrs. M Vishala Reddy Wo. Pandu Ranga Reddy Occ. Business, Age - 41 years, Female Plot No 13, Ground Floor, Tripura Enclave, T Ameen p u ra, Telangana-502032 Defendants

¶8

(oA. No. 304/2026)

¶9

Counsel for the parties :

¶10

For The Applicant N. M. Shiny Mounika For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on 07.07.2026 Pronounced on 09.07.2026 Upload in website on 09.07.2026

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.92,44,g3i.g7. ps. (Rupees Ninety Two Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty One and Eighty Seven paise Only) under various Commercial Vehicle loan account with future rate of interest @11.08%^p.a with monthty rests from 01.07.2025 tiil the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of property to OA.

¶13

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that along with Defendant no. 2 availed cility of Rs.1 ,74,83,900/- repayabte

¶14

in 5 years 58 I^installments of Rs.75,960/- p.m with,' inter6!qflLo?m, monthly rests and executed

¶15

1i I -,:

¶16

(oA. No. 304/2026)

¶17

necessary loan documents such as Agreement for loan and Guarantee dated 29.04.2022in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 1 along with Defendant no. 2 availed Commercial Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.1,03,g6,900/_ repayable in 58 equated monthly installments of Rs.19,390/- p.m with interest @8.75Yo p.a with monthly rests and executed necessary loan documents such as Agreement for loan and Guarantee dated 19.05.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 13.06.2025 and issued Loan Recall Notice dated 19.0'1.2026 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶18

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 07.07.2026.

¶19

Ms. Adithya AS, Legal Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.18.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

¶22

The point is whether the Applicant bank is in the OA against the

¶23

(oA. No. 30al2026)

¶24

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.18. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entiiled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶25

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

¶26

The Defendants no. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severaily liabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.92,44,g3i.g7. ps. (Rupees Ninety Two Lakhs Fofi Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty One and Eighty Seven paise Only) under various Commercial Vehicle loan account with future rate of interest @11.08o/o p.a lrom 01.07.2025 tilt the date of rea lization

¶27

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

The Applic_ar[4 to proceed against the person ' J" and proper{l6s 1 and 2 towards realization :i of thedebt-(tue.0 g JUL 2m

¶29

(OA. No. 304/2026)

¶30

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

¶31

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶32

lssue 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 09th day ofJul, 2026)

¶35

sd/-
(c. GoPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFIGER

¶36

f.ffir
6 -S

¶37

"i.RUE6OP
llr e."u"=

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vijaya Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Venkatamahalaxmi Powerloom Industry

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Swarooparani Parakala

State Bank of India versus M/S. Royal Industries

Icici Bank Limited versus Nampally Ramakrishna