Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Jmj Fleet Services

DRT13 Mar 2026OA/394/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan amount and interest. The court held that the defendants failed to substantiate their denial of notice or claim that documents were signed on blank formats, as they forfeited the right to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay the claim amount with future interest and costs; application secured by way of hypothecation of assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Jmj Fleet Services — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TR]BUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 394 OF 2023

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd . #7-70-6013, 3d Floor, 4A Suryodaya Complex, Begumpet, Hydera bad-500016 Rep. by its authorised signatory

¶5

.....Applica nt

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. lMl Fleet Services HIG B- 14, APHB Colony, Opp: Cyber City, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500019 Rep. by its Partner

¶8

Mr. T. Anil Joseph Reddy

¶9

14r. T. Anil loseph Reddy S/o. Inna Reddy Aged about 46 years, Occ; Business, R/o. H.No. HIG-14, APHB Colony, Opp: Cyber City, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500019

¶10

Also at

¶11

Mr. T Anil loseph Reddy C/o. H.No.G4, lYanaga Paradise Opp: NRI Academy, Bach u pally, Quthubullapur,^{Hyderabad-50090}

¶12

Mr. T. Sandhya Rani R/o. H.No. HIG B-14, APHB Colony, Opp. Cyber City, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500019

¶13

Also at

¶14

lvlr. T Anil Joseph Reddy C/o. H.No.G4, Managa Parad ise Opp: NRI Academy, Bachupally, Quthubullapur,^{Hyderabad-5009!} (/w*\ ... Defenda nts

¶15

OA. No. 394/2023

¶16

Counsel for the Appllcant : lv'lr. M. Srinivas^Reddy Counsel for the Defendants : l'4r. K. Chiranjeevi Reddy

¶17

:: ORDER::

¶18

The Applicant Bank flled the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.70,26,014.85 ps from the defendant Nos. 1 to 3^jointly and severally with future interest @ 18yo p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs, and in default, sale of O.A. of hypothecated assets.

¶19

The averments of the applicant bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are Defendant No.1 partnership firm with Defendant No.2 as partner, alongside Defendants Nos.2 & 3 as guarantors, applied for Current Account Business Loan facility on 12.72.2014, pursuant to which the Applicant Bank sanctioned Rs.10 lakhs vide sanctlon letter dated 26.12.2074 which was repayable in 12 months along with interest @10o/o. The defendants executed loan agreement, demand promissory note, letter of continuing security & undertaklng cum indemnity executed on 30.72.2074. Upon Defendants' request, facility was enhanced to Rs.50 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 27.07.20L7, secured by Defendant No.1's deed of hypothecation dated 21.01.2077 creating charge over OA Schedule items. Owing to Defendants' negligence in adhering to repayment terms, account was classified NPA on 01.05.2021, followed by recall notice dated 06.03.2023 but to no avail. Hence the present OA for recovery of outstanding amount.

¶20

Defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed the written statement. The averments, thereof briefly, are that the total debt claimed by applicant bank is untenable for improper maintenance of the bank account. Defendants deny receipt of any notices from Respondent Bank or intimation of NpA classification on 01.05.2021. Consequently, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

OA. No.394/2023

¶22

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Ms. Adithya AS, Manager Legal, as AW_1 and marked 17 documents through him as Exhibits A-1 to A_17.

¶23

The right of Defendant Nos.1 to 3 to adduce evidence was forfeited forfeited vide docket order dated 27.71.2025, after affording ample opportunities.

¶24

Heard the Learned counsel for the applicant bank and learned counsel for the defendant. perused the material placed on record.

¶25

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant bank reiterated the version as in the application. He relied on Exs.A.1 to A.17 marked through applicant,s evidence (AW_1) as proof of claim of the bank and submitted that the bank is entiued for recovery of the outstanding amount together with future interest and costs and invoking the hypothecation deed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the defendants would repeat the contents of the written statement and contended that no notice including NpA notice or recall notice, was even been served on them, denied last transaction, the applicant bank obtained signatures on printed formats and that the applicant bank is not entiued to any claim and hence OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the OA ctaim against the Defendants and O,A. hypothecated assets?

¶29

As stated supra, defendants except making bald statement in the written statement that they did not receive any notice, no chance was given to repay the loan, no notice was served prior to NpA, their signatures were obtained on blank printed formats etc., they failed to substantiate their plea by adducing evidence or by confronting the witness of the applicant bank by way of cross -""'-in.uti'" the veracit, or

¶30

ZYw;:;

¶31

oA.^{No. 394/2023}

¶32

the^{Exhibits A-1 to A-17' It is settled law that mere statements without} sufficient^{evidence is of no avail'On the other hand' the applicantproduced} 17 documents^{and markedthem throughAW-1 as proof of it claim' Under} such^{circumstances'the evidence affidavitof AW-1 coupled with recitalsin} Exhibits^{A-1 to A-17remains unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' I hold} that the^{defendant nos'1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the} applicant^{bank the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs'}

¶33

11.^{In the result, the present Original ApplicationNo'394/2023is allowed}

¶34

as under:^-

¶35

(i) The^{DefendantNos'.1to 3-arejointly and severally} " '11'.)".ie,.hl';;r' -'ff:It"il: ?i[1+ E'-:i 13'7s';"s"';;;id;^{the date of application till the} date^{of realization;}

¶36

(ii) the OA^{claim is secured.by wav of hvpothecation of} assets^{as described in the schedule annexedto the} oo uio"loi"ut""iG"r^{is entitled to proceed against} the same^{for realization of dues;}

¶37

(iii) the applicant^{is also enUtledto proceed againstthe} person and^{properties ol} ,the^{deiendantnos' 1 to 3} for realization^{of dues;ano}

¶38

iv)^{the applicant bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶39

The^{Applicant Bank is directedto file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from} the date^{of receipt of this Order'}

¶40

13.^{Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly'}

¶41

74, Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'}

¶42

(Dictated to the^{steno' corrected'signedand pronounced by mein the open court on this the} 13th day^{of March, 2025) '}

¶43

frry"* (RAMESHWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Jmj Fleet Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Jmj Fleet Services

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Shilpa Electrical Infra Tech India Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pusala Lakshmamma

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Pidathala Ashok Kumar

Axis Bank versus Chandra Mohan

State Bank of India versus M/s. Eswar Filling Station.

Canara Bank versus Sri. Nittoori Srinivas