Allowed

Idfc Bank Limited v. MD Arshad

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by iDFC FIRST BANK Ltd. against the defendant for recovery of a principal sum of Rs. 32,18,878.30 with interest and costs. The defendant remained absent, and the Tribunal held the claim clinched by the petitioner's evidence and documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 32,18,878.30 plus future interest at 14.25% p.a., costs, and execution of recovery certificate.

Idfc Bank Limited versus MD Arshad — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22Nd DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGiNAL APPLICATION No: 341 OF 2026

¶5

M/s. iDFC FIRST BANK Ltd., Having its office at 1-10-63/1/1, Veer Chambers, Chikoti Gardens, opp. Shoppers Stop, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 Represented by its authorized signatory

¶6

.......Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

MT. MD ARSHAD AYUB S/o. IVIOHD ISMAIL, ).88 2I7 A B RIYASATH NAGAR NEAR 81R BUS STOP RIYASATH NAGAR HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-5OOO59

¶9

ALSO AT- MD ARSHAD AYUB, RIYASATH NAGAR X ROAD IVIIDHANI BUS DEPOT KANCHAN BAGH HYDERABAD, TELANGANA- 500059

¶10

....... Defendant

¶11

: l4r. Srihari Bathina Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Defendant :^Ex-parte hn"

¶12

oA.NO.341/2026

¶13

::^qLLEL ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 32,18,878.30^ps as on 25.77.2025 from the sole defendant with future interest @ 14.25o/o^p.a. along with^2olo p.m. on unpaid EMIS with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along wlth costs.

¶15

Summon served on Sole Defendant and was set exparte on 77.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined l4r. Akash Ghosh, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 7 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7.

¶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?

¶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.7 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 No.341 /2026 is allowed as under: - .d

¶22

oA.NO.34112026

¶23

¶24

i) The Sole Defendant is^{liable to pay to the} Applicant Bank a Rs.^{32,t8,878.30 ps with} future interest @^{14.25o/op.a. simple from} the date of application^{till the date of} realization;

¶25

ii) the applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceed} against the^person and^propertiesof defendant for realization^{of its dues;}

¶26

iii ) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor 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,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 22nd^{DayofJune, 2026).}

¶30

Krlstb sHwAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Idfc Bank Limited v. MD Arshad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc Bank Limited v. MD Arshad

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

Mr Yempalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Perumandla Kishan versus M S Ikf Home Finance

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hygiene Retail India Private Ltd.