Allowed

Bank of India v. Sri. Veerabhadra Reddy Cheedu

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/334/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application filed for recovery of principal debt, future interest, and costs against a sundry defaulter who remained ex-parte, confirming the bank's entitlement to proceed against both the person and mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,65,040.19 plus future interest at 9% p.a.; order to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; costs allowed.

Bank of India versus Sri. Veerabhadra Reddy Cheedu — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (HonS.), M.A. PRESiDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 334 OF 2026

¶5

BANK OF INDIA Having their Head Office at Star House, C-5 G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051 And its branches at Banjara Hills Branch, 8-2-403/4, RMB Select Building, Ground Floor, Road No.4. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034 Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶6

.......Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sri. Veerabhadra Reddy Cheed u, S/o. Sri Cheddu Linga Reddy, R/o. H. No.9-12, Kindi Basti, Near Santhoshi Mata Temple, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana-500014

¶9

And also, at Sri. Veerabhadra Reddy Cheedu, S/o. Sri Cheddu Linga Reddy, R/o. Flat No. 403, 4th Floor, Sri Sai Nilayam, Plot No. 129 and 130, Medchal- Malkajgiri District-501401

¶10

Defendant

¶11

: M/s. Chavan & Associates Counsel for the Applicant /?9w',x:,.;\ counsel for the Defendant I Ex-pafte (y\6\1

¶12

oA.NO.334/2026

¶13

:: qLLLL ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.20,65,040.19^ps as on^{10.06.2025from the sole} defendant with future^interest @^{9.35olop.a. with monthly rests} from the date of application till the date of^{realizationalong} with costs, and in default sale of OA^{mortgaged property.}

¶15

Summon served on Sole^Defendant and^{was set exparteon} 19.06.2026 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶16

The Applicant Bank examlned Mr. Chikati^{Ramesh,Senior} Manager, as AW-l and marked 20 documents through^himas Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.20.

¶17

Heard Learned Counsel for the^{Applicant. 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 and OA mortgaged property?

¶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.20 marked on behalf of the^{ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the^Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant ls liable to^pay tDgiOA^claimto the Applicant Bank with future interest unO rortS{Ut.\

¶21

oA.NO.334/2025

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.334/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a Rs. 20,65,040.19 ps with future interest @ 9olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant for realization of its dues;

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23'd Day of June, 2026). 'ffi*+

¶30

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. Sri. Veerabhadra Reddy Cheedu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sri. Veerabhadra Reddy Cheedu

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

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Pithani Veera Raju

Hdfc Bank versus Yateesree Marketing

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna