Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Snehalatha, S. v Balusu

DRT16 Nov 2023OA/17/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for the recovery of Rs. 34,30,983.83 with interest and costs against the two respondents, holding them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 34,30,983.83 with future interest; loan secured by hypothecated vehicles; Bank entitled to proceed against person/property and receive costs.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Snehalatha, S. v… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF NOVEIVIBER, 2023

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: t7 OF 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, Gachibowli, ICICI Towers, Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney Holder. .....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Snehalatha, S. V Balusu, D/o. Subhash Chandra Bose Hanumara, Aged: 46 Years, Occ: Self Employee, R"/o. H.No. 8-3-8331N7, Ftat No. 301, B Usha Enclave, Navodaya Colony, Satya Sai Sangamam, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500073, Telangana State.

¶8

Mrs. Alivelu Manga Tayaru Hanumara, D/o. Venkata Ratnam Kosaraju, Aged: 65 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 8-2-293/821J/Al A-gt, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, NearSyndicateBank,Hyderabad-500033. ...Defendants

¶9

: M.V. KINI Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants : Exoarte

Ox",

oa-No.L712022

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.34,30,983.8ps with future interest @ 24olo p.a. with monthly rests from 01.08.2021 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicles.

¶16

Summons served on D1 & 2. They were set exparte on 19,OA.2O22 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Sathish Manappuram, Zonal Debt lvlanager, as AW-1 and marked 14 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.14.

¶18

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated vehicles?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affldavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.14 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs, dW**

¶22

oa.No.t7l2o22

¶23

¶24

In the result. the present Original Application No.t7/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are joinHy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.34,30.983.8ps with future interest @ 9.25o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

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 entiued to proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th Day of November,2023).

¶32

ffi6o lRft,tesnwnn rorne; PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Snehalatha, S. v Balusu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Mr. Snehalatha, S. v Balusu

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

Uco Bank versus Ms T D Enterprise

State Bank of India versus Jagriti Dubey

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sandhya Sanitary and Others

Sri B Pattabhiram Singh versus Federal Bank

Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh

Ms Stark Industries versus Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank)