Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Guduru Sai Kumar Reddy

DRT22 Nov 2023OA/113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 36,70,971 along with future interest and costs against the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs. 36,70,971 plus future interest and costs; recovery of dues from hypothecated vehicle and properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Guduru Sai Kumar Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 22"d DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KoTT r*..ror^o5;r1.tJfl '^{L LB (Hons ), M'A.}

¶2

Original Application No: 113 OF 2022

¶3

ICICI Bank Limited. Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad Rep. by its Debt Manager and General^power of Attorney Holder.

¶4

.....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Guduru Sai Kumar Reddv. S/o. Guduru Narsi Reddv_ L9:q.^{34 years,occ: Buiiness,} ptot No. 22, Road No.2. Sama Nagar, Saheb Kalan, Near Saibaba Temple, Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad-501505.

¶7

Smt. Guduru Mounika. Wo. G_uduru Sai Kumar Reddy, Aged; 2g^years, Road No. 2. Sama Nagar, Saheb Kalan_ Near Saibaba Temple, Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad-50150S.

¶8

,..,Defendants

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ms. Anit Vydya

: Exparte

Ory*

oA.NO.113/2022

:: ORDER::

The Applicant^{Bank filedthe presentOA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs'36,7O,g7U-^{frcm the defendants jointly and} severally^{with future interest @ 9 25olo p'a with compounded} monthly from^{29.06.2021tlllthe date of realization along with} costs and^{in deFaultfor sale of OAhypothecated vehicle'}

¶18

Summons^{served on D1 & D2 through paper publication'They} were set^{exparteon !5,O2'2O23 as called absent and no} representation.

¶19

The Applicant^{Bank examinedSathish KumarM' ZonalDebt} Nlanager, as^{AW-1 and marked 11 documents through himas} Ex. A.1 to Ex.^A.11.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for^{the Applicant Bank reportedorders maybe} passed on merits. Perused^{the material placedon record'}

¶21

The^point that^{arisesfor considerationis:-}

¶22

whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim^{made in the OA against} the Defendant and^{OA hYPothecated} vehicle?

¶23

As stated supra,^{the Defendantsremainedex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupled withthe recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to^{A.11 markedon behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim^{of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendants are jointly and severallyliable} to^pay the OA^{claim to the ApplicantBankwith future interest} and costs' X )P(r''''r>" )'

¶24

¶25

oA.NO,113/2022

¶26

7, In the result, the present Original Application No.113/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of RS.36,7O,97L1- with future interest @ cu

¶28

)9.95%^p.a. simple from the date of g .1_S^'1, application till the date of realization;

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

B, The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost lvlemo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed end pronounced by me in the open court on thisthe 22"d Day of November,2023) .

¶35

S,,ro

¶36

PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Guduru Sai Kumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Guduru Sai Kumar Reddy

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

Bank of India versus Ranjan Jyoti Goswami

Uco Bank versus MD Abdul Razzak

Kusum Chandrakant Raut versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Om Transport

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Paras Poly N Print & Ors.

Canara Bank versus Anita Gupta and Ors.