Allowed

Idfc Bank Limited v. Venutharla Samson

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/343/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by IDFC First Bank Ltd. for recovery of loan dues from Mr. Venutharla Samson, who remained absent. The court held the defendant liable based on evidence and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to recover Rs.25,82,160.12 with future interest and costs; recovery certificate issued.

Idfc Bank Limited versus Venutharla Samson — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), [4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 343 OF 2026

¶4

IDFC First Bank Ltd., Having its Office at 1-10-63/1/1 Veer Chambers, Chikoti Gardens Opp. Shoppers Stop, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500016. Rep. by Authorised Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Venutharla Samson, S/o. Surya Prakash Venutharla, H.No.1 39 1A Shankar Nagar Chanda Nagar Hyderabad, Telanga na - 500050.

¶8

Also at:Venutharla Samson 3 7 702, Opp Police Station Main Road Sadasivapet, Dist Sangareddy Sadasivpet, Telangana - 502291.

¶9

...... Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

:Mr. Srihari Bathina

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: qLLE& ::

The Appllcant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.25,82, 160. 12ps towards Loan A/c.Nos. 145736882/ O5O3377 345 from the defendant with. future interest @2olo p.m. from the date of application till the date of realisation along^with costs. tJ /,D(S>-

¶16

OA.No.343/2026

¶17

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set exparte on 78.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Akash Ghosh, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

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

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 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.

¶23

In the result, the present Orlginal Application No.343/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.25,82,160.12ps towards Loan A/c.Nos.145736882/0503377345 with future interest @15olo^p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization; /hrr1z ^t. (/'dtv'"

¶25

OA.No.343/2026

¶26

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for

¶27

realization of its dues;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

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 22^d day ofJune,2O26)-

¶32

(RAT4 ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Idfc Bank Limited v. Venutharla Samson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc Bank Limited v. Venutharla Samson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.