Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Gundra Raghava Reddy

DRT20 Sept 2023OA/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for joint and several recovery of Rs. 56.49 lakhs from the defendants, liable based on the examination of evidence and ex-parte proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of joint and several liability to pay Rs. 56.49 lakhs with interest; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated vehicles and defendants' properties; and issuance of recovery certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Gundra Raghava Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2oth DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2023

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 16 OF 2022

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited, Situated at Gachibowli, ICICI Towers, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney Holder.

¶5

. ..,.Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Gundra Raghava Reddy, S/o. Parama Reddy Gundra, Aged: 57 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. 1-4, Fathepur, Shankar Pally, Near Water Tank, K.V. Rangareddy, Hyderabad-501203, Telangana State.

¶8

Also at:

¶9

Mr. Gundra Raghava Reddy, S/o, Parama Reddy Gundra, Aged: 57 Years, Occ: Business, Rl o. 9-591 4/D/7, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-501203. Telangana State.

¶10

Mr. Rammohan Reddy Gundra, S/o. Gundra Raghava Reddy, Aged: 36 Years, Occ: Self Employee, Rlo, L-4, Fathepur, Shankar Pally, Near Water Tank, K.V. Rangareddy,

¶11

oA.NO.16/2022

¶12

¶13

Hyderabad-501203, Telangana^State.

¶14

Also at: Mr- Rammohan^{Reddy Gundra'} s/o. Gundra^{RaghavaReddy,} Loed: 36^{Years,Occ: Self EmPloYee'} eio.^g-59/4tol7 ,^{ShankaraPallr'} Ranga^{neddYDistrict-501203'} ...Defendants Telangana^State.

¶15

: M.V.^Kini Counsel^{for the APPlicant}

Defendants

: Exparte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant^{Bankfiledthe presentOA for the recovery a total} sum of^{Rs.56,49,56030ps from the defendants jointly and} severally^{with futureinterest@ 249'lo p a compounded with} monthly^{rests frcm O2'O7 '2OZ1till the date of realisationalong} with costs^{and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicles'}

¶20

The defendants^{rightof filing written statement was forfeitedon} 04.7L.2022.

¶21

The Applicant^{Bank examined N Chandrasekhar'Regional} Relationship^{Manager, as AW-1 and marked26 documents} through^{hlm as Ex. A 1 to Ex A 26'}

¶22

Heard^{the Ld. counselfor the Applicant Bankand perused the} material^{placed on record.} OW^t

¶23

OW^t

¶24

oA.NO.r612022

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicles?

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to 4.26 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs,

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.1612022 is

¶29

allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.56,49,560.30ps with future interest @ 74.7o/o simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶32

iii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for reatization of its or.h$*

¶33

oA.NO.1612022

¶34

¶35

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Didated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thas the 2Os day of Septem ber, 2023) .

¶39

fu"* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Gundra Raghava Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Gundra Raghava 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 Baroda versus M/s Pung Enterprise

Canara Bank versus Sri Pranjal Boruah

Indian Bank versus M/s S. Footware and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Lalita Saini

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ram Singh

Union Bank of India versus Maya Saha and Anr.