Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Narayana Reddy

DRT1 Sept 2026OA/430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 45,59,098/- along with interest. The court held four defendants jointly and severally liable after the presentment of evidence including registered mortgage deeds and service of recall notices by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 45,59,098/- with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and awarded costs.

Hdfc Bank versus Narayana Reddy — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE1SrDAYoFSEPTEMBER,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M'A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

: ,l

¶4

Original Application No: 430^{OF 2024}

¶5

HDFC Bank Ltd., Having its office at^BankHouse 6-3-246 &.6-3-244/A,^{6tn Floor, Roxana Palladium,} Road No.1, Banjara^{Hills, Hyderabad-500034,} Rep. by its authorized signatory

¶6

""'Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Madduru^{NarayanaReddY,}

¶9

S/o. Thimma^ReddY Aged about 62 Years,^{Occ: Farmer} Rio. H. No. B0-134-7-34,^{VenkatadriNagar,} Kurnool, Kurnool^District -⁵¹⁸⁰⁰²

¶10

Mrs. Madduru^Nagamani,

¶11

W/o. NaraYana^ReddY Aged about⁵⁶ Years, Occ : Home^Maker R/o. H. No. 80-134-1-34, Venkatadri^{Nagar, Kurnool,} Kurnool District -⁵¹⁸⁰⁰²

¶12

Mr. Madduru^{Hema SundarReddy,} S/o. NaraYana^ReddY Aged about³⁵ Years,^{Occ: Business} R7o. H. No.^{B0-134-l--3A, VenkatadriNagar'} Kurnool, Kurnool^{District - 518002}

¶13

Mr. Shaik^Nadimulla

¶14

S/o. Chinna^UmarSaheb Aged about^{47 Years, Occ: Business} n7o. H. No.^{2'49, Alaganur Village'} Midthuru Mandal, Kurnool^{District - 518405}

"'Defer'dants

Qffi"rulb

| 1 l'

OA No.430/2024

2of5

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defendants

¶21

: Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶22

: M/s. Abhay Singh & Associates

¶23

1: , l'he Appticant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rp.,45,5,9,t08/- from the Defendants 1to 4 jointly and severally with futurg,interest @ 11.50o/o p.a. with monthly rest from OB.OB.2024 till the date ,of . realisation along with costs, and in default sale of mortgaged proPe,rties.

¶24

l, . ,;i! I 2, ,, .1'he averments of the Applicant Bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that,Defendant No.1, being the borrower, Defendant Nos.2 and 3, being the co-borrowers, and Defendant No.4, being the guarantor, had availed Qgsn^{crgdit and DoD loan facilities} aggregating to Rs.35,00,000/- in the yea|, :4018, which were secured by mortgage of the o.A. Schedule PloPe.rties. However, defendants committed persistent defaults in repa.yrnent : of the loan instalments, resulting in the loan account being classified as a NPA. Thereafter, the applicant bank issued a loan recall noti,ge dated 28.05.2024 calling upon the defendants to discharge the gutqtanding dues. Despite service of the said notice, the defendants failed tp : regularise the account, compelling the applicant bank to file the present OA seeking recovery of the outstanding dues.

¶25

3' Defendants filed a Written Statement, contesting the maintainability i.:' of the . I OA. ) The Defendants raise an objection as to the jurisdiction of this Tribu,nal on the ground that the loans were sanctioned when the erstwhile Stalel ,of Andhra Pradesh was in existence, while the Defendants are rpsidin,O at Kurnool and the concerned Bank branch is now situated in Tplangpna, i' They further dispute the correctness and legibility of the qtaterrrents'of account and contend that the Applicant Bary( is requirBd to ;';ll , OW"*

;';ll ,

OA No.430/2024

3of5

strictly prove the alleged debt as well as the nature and classification of the mortgaged properties as agricultural land. The Defendants also dispute the valuation of the mortgaged properties, contending that the'22.5 acres of i agricultural land offered as security is disproportionately higher irr value than the loan facilities availed. They deny the alleged guarantee of Defendant No.4, asserting that the guarantee and covering documents ,i were obtained on blank forms and that Defendant No.4 has no connection with the other Defendants. The Defendants deny receipt of any^{recall notice} or demand notice and dispute the classification^{of the accounts as NPA,} contending that the applicable holiday^{period was not duly considereiJ, They} also dispute the outstanding amount of^{Rs.45,59,tOB/- and aliege under-} financing and excessive levy of interest^{and charges, reservihg their- right} to seek appropriate counterclaim^{for recovery of such excess amounts,:loss} and damages. Accordingly,^{defendants pray for dismissal of the bn.; '} ,.i:

¶30

In order to^prove its^{case, Applicant Bank examined by:Mr.D:.} Suresh, Deputy Manager^{as AW-1 and marked 12 documents through t:hem}

¶31

tv adduru 5. In order to^{substantiatetheir defence,l'tdefendant Mr.} Narayana Reddy, examined^{himselfas DW-1, 2nd defendant Mrs'} lv'radd u ru Nagamani, examined^{himself as DW-2 and markedno documents'} ::

¶32

Heard learned counsel^{for the applicant and learned co:unselfor the} respondent. Perused the^{written arguments filed by the applicant,} ir defendants and also^{perusedthe material placed on record .} "' 7, Both learned Counsel^{reiteratedthe respective avermeAt!'nrade"'in} the Respondent^{Applicationand written statementand p[ayed that} appropriate orders^{be passed in accordance wiu taw.fi,K} lA,

I ''r

OA No.43012024

4of5

B. r-he point that arises for consideration is:-

¶38

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled^{for the OA claim} ' against the Defendants and^{mortgaged properties?}

¶39

According to the learned counsel appearing for the^{Applicant Bank,} the Defendants availed Cash Credit and DOD loan^{facility and failed to} discharge the liability despite repeated requests. Exs.A.2 to^{A.5, A.11 and} A.l?-, marked through AW-1, establish that the Defendants availed^{the said} loan facilities and failed to discharge the outstanding liability. The defenrlants filed written statement and evidence affidavit but marked no docurricntary evidence. The defendants have^principally denied the execu.ion of the mortgage deeds and other loan documents in favour of the QpOlicant^{bank, the commission of any default, and the receiptof the NPA} classif"ication and recall notices. However, Exs.A.6 and A.7, being the registered Mortgage Deed and Hypothecation-cum-Guarantee Agreement, establish the security interest created in favour of the Applicant Bank over the subject properties and the guarantee furnished by Defendant No.4 in respect of the said loan facilities. Further, Exs. A.8 to A.10 evidences the issuance and service of the recall notice upon the defendants, thereby disproving their contention regarding non-receipt of the said notices. Apart from the bald statements, the Defendants neither chose to mark any documents to substantiate his pleas, nor chose to cross-examine AW-1 to disprove the veracity of Exs. A.1 to A.12, the material papers relied on by the Applicant Bank. On the other hand, the evidence affidavit of AW-1, coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.Lz, amply prove the claim of the bank. Accordingly, the OA deserves to be allowed, holding the Defendants 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim with future interest.

L , 1i

OA No.430/'20

5of5

In the result, the present Original Application No.430/2024 is all as under: -

¶44

(i) The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable ' to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 45,59,lOil/with future interest rate @ 9o/o 08.08.2024 till the date of realization;

¶45

(ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties as described in Schedules annexed to the OA^and applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the^{same for} realisation of dues;

¶46

(iii) the applicant is entitled to^proceed against the and properties of the defendants for^reallzatiorr dues; and

¶47

(iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs;

¶48

il 11. The Applicant Bank is directed^{to file Cost Memo within} 2 weeks from ,i the date of receipt of this Order.

¶49

L2. Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶50

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned.}

¶51

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by me in the open court on this the} 1" day of September,2026l

¶52

Aw-'

¶53

(RhffiESHWAR KOrHE) PRESIDING OTI-ICER : .,,,;

¶54

OA.No. 43O / 2024

¶55

sheets. In the result 01.09.2026 Orders^{pronounced,vide seParate} OA.No.43012024 is allowed^with costs. Issue Recovery Certificate accordi^{n glY.} Mo* / ln., ,

¶56

P.O.

Hdfc Bank v. Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Narayana Reddy

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

Mdh Motors Private Limited versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Nagella Rama Krishna Reddy versus Idbi Bank

Lakky reddy Rajashekar Reddy versus Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Maneesha Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus Naskon Associates

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri Maheeja Constructions