Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mohd Ikram Khan

DRT12 Aug 2026OA/486/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte order, the Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 486 of 2026 filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. for the recovery of Rs. 22,51,885.43 from the defendant, holding him liable to pay the amount with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 22,51,885.43 plus future interest at 10.35% p.a. simple interest from the application date till realization, along with costs.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mohd Ikram Khan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST,²⁰²⁶

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 486^{OF 2026}

¶5

H DFC BanK Ltd., 1- 10-60/3, 3'd Floor, Suryodaya^complex Opp Shoppers Stop,^{Begumpet,Hyderabad- 500 016.} Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mohd lkram Khan, S/o.^{Mohd Nayeem} Khan, Age 33 Years,^{Occ: Pvt. Service} 76ll\6/G/C/27 ,^{Teegal Guda,Saleem} Nagar, Hyderabad,^Telangana -^500036.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

lYohd Ikram^Khan C/o. Tata Consultancy^{Servlces Limited.,} TCS Ibrahimpatnam^{Mandal, Adibatla} nvO"ruouO, ielangana -^5o151o

¶11

.' Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant^{: M/s Loius Law Associates} Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶13

::^q-LLLL::

¶14

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.22,51,885.43ps^{from the defendantwith futureinterest} @10.35olo^{p.a. compoundedmonthlyrestsfrom10 02 2026 till the} date of realisation^{along with costs'}

¶15

Summon sent^{to sole defendant returnedwith endorsementrefused} hence, deemed^{to be served and was set ex-parteon 06 08 2026 as} called absent^{and no representatlon} lnu .-rs\ -z ru^*

¶16

OA.l'1o.486/2025

¶17

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Adithya A S, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the materia I 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.06 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 Original Application No.486/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is ljable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.22,51,885.43ps with future interest @10.35% p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶26

iii) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

/ru"s\

oA.No.486/2025

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to^{file CostMemo within 2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this^Order.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly'

¶32

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected,^{signedand pronouncedbyme in the} open court on this the^{1.2thday of August, 2026).}

¶33

r)w*\

¶34

lnJraEsnwaR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mohd Ikram Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mohd Ikram Khan

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

Satish Kumar Shivaratri versus Axis Finance Limited

Sri Massa Srinivas versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Ms Sabiha Agencies

Hdfc Bank versus Vayuputhra Crane Services

Bsb industries and others versus Uco Bank

Shaik Abdul Mahboob Basha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and Others