Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Kirankumar Reddy

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Hyderabad allowed an original application filed by H DFC Bank Ltd. for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 20,55,587.42 plus future interest and costs against the sole defendant, who remained ex-parte. The court held the evidence sufficient and ordered the defendant to pay the dues.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 20,55,587.42 with future interest @10.50% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAI{ESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB,^{(HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application No: 331 OF 2025

¶5

H DFC Ba n k Ltd., One of its Branch office at 1-10-60/3, 3'd Floor, (3A), Suryodaya Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. Rep. by its Legal Manager. Versus Mr. Kachana Klran Kumar Reddy S/o. K. Venkata Konda Reddy, H.No.28 759lLA NGOS Colony, Opp. Munlcipal School Kurnool Andhra Pradesh - 518501.

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Also at:-

¶8

M/s. lade Global Software Private Limited., Q^{City, Nanakramguda,BlockB} 4th Floor, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500032.

¶9

......Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : lvlr. Srihari^Bathina Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶11

:: g-LLLL ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recovery of a sum of} Rs.20,55,587.42ps towards Loan A/c. No.127926218 from^the defendant with future interest @10.50Vo^{p.a. plus27o p.m. with} realisation monthly rests from the date of application ,,Hlf _9,."rit along with costs. ,iut"^''

¶13

oA.No.33U202s

¶14

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 10.09.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined A S Adithya, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 05 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs,

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.331/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.20,5 5,587 .42ps towards Loan A/c. No. 12792627A with future interest @10.50yo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the appllcant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues; /p-/-.io,r-\

¶24

OA.No.331/2025

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶26

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost lYemo wlthin 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day ofApril, 2026).

¶29

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Kirankumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Kirankumar 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

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.

Karre Radha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Naresh Banothu

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Laxminarayana Narasimulu Palakurki

Union Bank of India versus Amma Petroleum Company.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Manopadu Swamy