Allowed

M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited. v. M/s. Payzigo Fintech Private Limited.

DRT14 Aug 2026OA/609/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Induslnd Bank Limited for recovery of a loan of Rs. 1,05,58,123.98 with interest from defendants who remained in ex-parte. The tribunal directed sale of mortgaged properties and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,05,58,123.98 with interest; OA claim secured by mortgage; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited. versus M/s. Payzigo… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB. (HONS.), T4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No : 609 0F 2026

¶4

I4/s. Induslnd Bank Limited., Secunderabad Branch, 1-10-72, 3'd Floor Ashoka Janardhan Chambers, Begumpet Secunderabad - 500016. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. . ....Applica nt.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Payzigo Fintech Private Limited., 2-7-464/483, Flat No.401, Royal Villa Nallakunta, Hyderabad, Tela n9a na^- 500044. Rep by its Director.

¶7

Mr. Pynda Ravikanth, S/o. Pynda Kameshwara Rao, Age 42 Years Occ: Buslness, R/o, t-87747/2, Old Nallakunta, Hydera bad - 500044.

¶8

Also at:MIG 2, Block 23, Flat No. 11, APHB Colony, Bagh Lingampally, Near Sai Baba Temple, New Nallakunta Hyderabad, Telangana - 500044.

¶9

Mr. Pynda Kameswara Rao, S/o. Punda Chiranjeevi, Age Major, Occ: Business R/o. 2-2-7766/L, Nallakunta, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, Telangana-500044.

¶10

Mrs. P Leela Sai Varadhani, W/o. Pynda Ravikanth, Age 39 Years, Occ: Business R/o. !-8L747 /2, Old Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500044.

¶11

Also at:MIG 2, Brock 23, Frat No. LL, APHB (/!fi2r,,&;\

¶12

oa.No.609/2026

¶13

¶14

Colony, Bagh Lingampally, Near Sai Baba Temple, New Nallaku nta Hyderabad, Telanga na - 500044.

¶15

... Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant

¶17

: Mrs. Maanam Sailaja

Defe nda nts

:Ex-parte

::^qLLER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,05,58,123.98ps as on 31.05.2026 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @11.170lo p.a. at monthly rests from 01.06.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶22

Summons served on Dl to 4. They were set ex-parte on 03.08.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined G V L Prasanna, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 16 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.16.

¶24

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

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents

¶28

oA.NO.6Os/2026

¶29

viz., Exs. A.1 to A.16 marked crinches the cra i m or the il":: ffffj J:,ff i'"',H:il: Hence, I hold that the Defendar and costs.to pay the oA craim ," ,r" ^r;ffii:l'l'#;",',":i'l:::.:

¶30

In the result, the present Originat Application No.609/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.1,05,58,123.98ps with future interest @9.50o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶34

iv) 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 accorOinlvffil\h

¶37

oA.No.609/2026

¶38

¶39

Commu l commu n i cate^{a copv of} d LUPY^u'this '"" "id"l -l -;; 19 pronounced by me in -tl:^-:3*:?,'"iiff",Llit;the open court on (Dir taled to^{thesteno, corrected'slBneoa} this the^{14rh DaYofAugust,2026)'}

¶40

.=5r-U

¶41

ESHWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited. v. M/s. Payzigo Fintech Private Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited. v. M/s. Payzigo Fintech Private Limited.

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vangaveti Jyothi/Artham Jyothi

City Union Bank Ltd. versus M/s Sree Gopala Krishna Flour and Oil Mill

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Raja Plastic Industries

M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited. versus M/s. Hoya Enterprises.

Yes Bank Limited. versus v Murali Krishna

M/s. Icici Bank Ltd., versus Mrs. Nellutla Temina