Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Ritish Rao Regulapati

DRT4 Sept 2026OA/98/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of loan dues totaling over Rs. 2.07 crores from borrowers and guarantors, holding the evidence unchallenged. The court directed the defendants to pay the amount with interest and authorized the sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

A joint and several liability order for payment of Rs. 2,07,37,395.59 with interest, authorization to proceed against mortgaged properties, and issuance of a recovery certificate.

Hdfc Bank versus Ritish Rao Regulapati — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE IST DAY OF SEPTEMBE& 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.98 OF 2026

¶5

Between:

¶6

HDFC Bank Ltd, Having its office at #5-9-22/A &. 5-9-22/ UB, 4th floor, Shapoorji Towers, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 063. Represented by its authorised Signatory, Mr. D. Suresh, S/o Lokanatham, aged about 36 years, occ: Deputy Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd, R/o Hyderabad.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr, Regulapati Ritish Rao, S/o Madhusudhan Rao, aged about 30 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.10-3-581, Arepally road, Bank colony, Karimnagar Town And district - 505 001.

¶10

Mr. Regulapati Nitish Rao, S/o Madhusudhan Rao, Aged about 24 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.10-3-581, Arepally road, Bank colony, Karimnagar Town And district - 505 001.

¶11

Mr. Regulapati Madhusudhan Rao, S/o Sridhar Rao, Aged about 61 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.10-3-581, Arepally road, Bank colony,

¶12

Karimnagar Town and district - 505 001.

¶13

.C:.

¶14

(oA.No.98/2026)

¶15

Mr. Kamarapu Satyanarayana, s/o Jaggaiah, aged about 60 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.3-4-192, Swaran street, Sai Nagar, Karimnagar town and district- SO5 001.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant Sri M. Srinivas Reddy Defendants 1 to 3 M/s. Guardian & Co,, Defendant no.4 Exparte Orders reserved on L7.08.2026 Pronounced on 01.09.2026 Uploaded in website on 04.09.2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,O1,37,3g5.59ps (Rupees Two Crores Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Five and paise Fifty Nine only) (Cash credit, DOD and term loan facilities) with interest @ 10.92% p.a with monthly rests from Lt.L2.2025 till the date of realization and thereafter @ 18% p.a with monthly rests and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the * defendant no.1 is the borrower and defendants no.2 & 3 are co-borrowqrs andede@rdani no.+ is the guarantor availed cash

¶22

,-.t 2 ,,^. . .'.].

¶23

(oA.No.e8l2026)

¶24

credit of Rs.10'00 rakhs DoD facirity of Rs.40.00 rakhs and KGC Ailied Indirect cash credit of Rs.245,00 rakhs vide sanction retter dated L8.L0.2022. The defendants hypothecated the crop as primary security and mortgaged the schedure mentioned properties in favour of Applicant bank. It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants availed the said roan facirities and faired to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued recall notice dated 07.05.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2rO7,37,385.59ps (Rupees Two Crores Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Five and paise Fifty Nine only) (Cash credit, DOD and term loan facilities) with interest @ 10.92o/o p.a with monthly rests from LL.L2.2OZS till the date of realization, Hence the OA.

¶25

The Defendants No.1 to 3 filed written statement and denied the averments made in the oA. It is contended that according to section 31 of SARFEASI Act and provisions the claim and relief sought against the agricultural lands is not sustainable and also contended that the classification of NPA is notli*per the RBI guidetines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. . "";'.15i l:. 'ir - - - ---' t:' -"' iri'''^:" .1. '. lrr^-1 .i -^trn U L, r- \rL u ,?l.- ;

¶26

(oA.No.98/2026)

¶27

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶28

Heard the arguments.

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶30

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

Mr. D. Suresh, Dy. Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearry deposed about the riabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.20 are marked through AW,1.

¶34

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount, All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants has not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the Applicant bank failed to follow the RBI guidelines as per the norms. ':-r -^{:l'l -::'_'}

¶35

-' :':'^{:.,-..:'.'::''.}

¶36

' 'AW.14s-F0t,qross 'l :' ' tl'''" ' .:r 1'_^{examined by the} counsel for defendants. The.defendams naJdrhpt " come forward to give evidence to substarlli{t{EFaEffi0eir ribpirity is tess than the amount mentioned in ,-jli" $i.,jl' ,i' 4 ,'',,..' ,,/ .r}, :.

¶37

(oA.No.98/2026)

¶38

the oA Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupred with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.20 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank crearry estabrished that the defendant is riabre to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶39

Point No.ii)

¶40

In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶41

The Defendants are joinfly and severaily riabre to pay to Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,O7,37,395.59ps (Rupees Two Crores Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Five and paise Fifty Nine only) (Cash credit, DOD and term loan facilities) with interest @ 10.92olo p.a from It.L2.2OZS till the date of realization till the date of realization.

¶42

The applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

The Applicant'Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶45

_f. J- .,, !' olcr i:. !^' .' ,5 ;

¶46

(oA.No.98/2025)

¶47

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1* day of September, 2026)

¶51

sd/-

¶52

(G. GOPICHAND) PRES!DING OFFICER

¶53

Hdfc Bank v. Ritish Rao Regulapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Ritish Rao Regulapati

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Srinivasulu Reddy

Mrs Uma Vani Indukuri versus State Bank of India

M/s.Sri Laxmi Enterprises and another versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohd.Manzoor Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

Hdfc Bank versus Baljeguden Mohan