Allowed

Idfc First Bank Limited Now v. Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao Nagubandi

DRT18 Jun 2026OA/382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of dues, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the claim of IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED against the defendant for the outstanding loan amount, future interest, and costs, as the defendant failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence. The court issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The Sole Defendant is liable to pay Rs. 24,85,010.57 with future interest at 14.15% p.a. The applicant is entitled to proceed against the defendant's properties for realization and costs.

Idfc First Bank Limited Now versus Mr… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026}

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application^{No: 382 OF 2025}

¶4

IDFC FIRST^{BANKLIMITED"NOW"} EARLIER M/S CAPITAL^{FIRST LIMITED} Door No. 6-3-354,^{2nd floor,} S B TOWERS,^{Near Nagarjuna circle,} Banjara hills^{Road No.1,} Hvderabad^{- 500034} Rep. by its^{AuthorizedRepresentative}

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

MR. MALLIKAR]UNA^{RAO NAGUBANDI} S/O BHASKARA^{RAO NAGUBANDI} I,CTO NEOUT 4i^{YEARS,OCC:BUSINESS} n r,lo: 8-3-9a9/^{1/ 7/B/718,FLATNO 118,} SANALl^{HEAVENS APARTMENTS,} KAMI4A SANGHAM,^{NEAR BIG BAZAR,} HYDERABAD^.5OOO73

¶8

... Defendant

¶9

Counsel^{for the Applicant} I M/s. V.^Santosh : Mr. Mohammed^Mazharuddin Cou nsel^{for Defendant}

¶10

:: ORDER::

¶11

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoveryof a sum of} Rs. 24,85,010'57^{ps as on 30'01'2025 from the sole defendantwith future} interest @^{24o/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the} date of^{realisation alongwith costs'}

¶12

The^{averments of the ApplicantBank' as stated in the OA' in brief'} arethatthedefendantapProachedtheapplicantforfinancialassistance and was^{sanctioned a BusinessLoan of <30'60'000 (Loan AccountNo'} 98017847)^{on 26.11.20'22. rhe defendant .-..w;\site} loan does

¶13

oA No.3B2/2025

¶14

2of4

¶15

in favour of the applicant. The applicant avers that despite repeated demands and reminders, the defendant committed persistent defaults in repayment, whereupon the loar th e a p p r ica n t i ss u eo a o e m a n or "'"',:.: :ffi T;:i:;:'.Hl r'[:"J :r"j defendant to clear the outstanding dues withln seven days. Despite receipt of the demand notice, the defendant failed to regularise the account or to pay the outstanding dues. Aggrieved by the continued defautt applicant approached this Tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶16

The Defendant filed brery, are that he was ."ril::: ;ff:::: "ff"i::'J:::J::.:; temporary irregularity occurred on account of unforeseen financial difficulties and substantial lol suffered in his rear estate business. The defendant states that n" ,norr"r the bank of his financial situation and assured the bank that ,n" u]t'uo would be regularised shortly Despite such assurance, uro *,,nor,tto'nt derendanr an opportunity," #::;:1;: ;l"::;:il:ffi "T^jJ:::llJ:: a NpA and instituted recovery proceedings. The defendant further submits that the bank had assured hin that recovery proceedings would be stayed temporariry and that he wourd be considered for ors The defendant avers that the bank initially offered - o" which he accepted' but that the bank subsequentry canceled ,n" .utn proposal midway without assigning any varid reason. The ,"r"nou,tt'u'unt com putation or outsta nd i ns r?1,.:::: ."fl :::T:ffT."ffi ;r,T." components, and calls upon th derendant expresses -;;;;"".: i:' j# il"':::il: J: j:: ;: :: J"; reasonable time, or alternative rresh one r,,u roo",",,l;il"Ifi ffi il";:*il::H,;j:; avers that the applicant has alft rady filed O.S. No. 5246 f 20 Cour rha T./ / .. -^{vi rrvr} J'ao o r zu 24 before the cour t of the IV-v lunior civil J udge, Hyderabad, arr4f_9u! of the same

K*s

oA No.382/2025

3 of 4

cause of action and that the said suit is^pending. The defendant contends that the institution of the^{presentproceedings} before this tribunal amounts to multiplicity of lltigation, forum shopping and abuse of the^process of court. Hence, defendant^prays that the O.A. be dismissed with costs.

¶21

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Mr. Akash Ghosh, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-10.

¶22

Defendant right of adducing evidence was forfeited after affording sufficient opportunities vide docket order dated 06.05.2026.

¶23

Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant Bank whereas the right of Defendant to advance arguments was forfeited on^{11.06.2026after} affording ample opportunity. Perused the material^{placed on record.}

¶24

The^polnt that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the^{OA claim} against the Defendant?

¶26

According to the learned counsel for the Applicant^{Bank the} Defendant availed a Business Loan facility from the^{Applicant Bank and,} despite repeated demands, failed to^{regularizeand discharge the} outstanding liability. The documentary evidence^placed on^record, particularly Exs.A.1 to A.3, duly establishes the sanction and availing^{of the} loan Facility by the Defendant. The^{Defendant filed a writtenstatement} contending, inter alia, that^{they werenot atfordedan opportunityto repay} the loan amount, that the OTS^{was cancelled, and that an incorrect amount} was being claimed by the Applicant Bank, already^{filed civil suitetc.} However, except for such bald averments, the^{Defendant failed to adduce} any oral or documentary evidence in^{support of} defence. Fu rther, he

OA No.382/2025

4of4

neither took steps to cross-examine AW-1 nor challenged the veracity of Exs.A.1 to A.10 relied upon by the Applicant Bank. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the testimony of AW-1 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A.1 to A.10 remain uncontroverted. Consequenfly, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant Bank has successfully established its claim. Accordingly, the O.A. deserves to be allowed and the Sole Defendant is liable to pay the O.A. claim together with future interest and costs, in accordance with law.

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.382/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶32

(i) The Sole Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 24,85,010.57 ps with future interest rate of l4.l5o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

( ii) the applicant is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the Sole Defendant for realization of its dues; and

¶34

(iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open of June, 2026)

¶39

n this the 18th day

¶40

ffi5ro\ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Idfc First Bank Limited Now v. Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao Nagubandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Limited Now v. Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao Nagubandi

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Hint Transformers Pvt. Ltd.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mahameed Kaleem

Hdfc Bank versus Anil Kumar

M/S. Bank of Baroda versus M/s Cure Diagnostics

State Bank of India versus Koliki Ranga Swamy

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Palla Madhava Reddy