Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Tekula Prashanth Reddy

DRT27 Sept 2023OA/18/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Recovery Tribunal allowed the ICICI Bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 57,28,033 from Defendants jointly and severally, holding that their default and the documented evidence supported the bank's claim over hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 57,28,033 with future interest @ 8.750% simple; Recovery Certificate issued; directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks.

Icici Bank Limited versus Tekula Prashanth Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: sH. MMESHWAR K( ,*.rro,il'iiit.F."fl^{., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.}

¶2

Originat Apptication No: 18 OF ZO22

¶3

ICICI Bank Limited, Situated at Gachib;wti_ ICICI Towers, Serilingampally. Mandal, Ranga neOOy Oistirci. Rep by its Authorized Signatory & Hower ot Attorney Holder' .....Appricant.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Mr. Tekula prashanth Reddy, S/o.^penta Reddy Tekula. Aged: 26^years, Occ: Seif Emptoyee, R/o.^plot No. 37, Street No.7, .Beside.Vivekananda^HighSchool, vtnayak Nagar Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District_ 50 1505. Telangana State.

¶6

Mr. Kandati Srinivas Reddy, S/o.^pitchi Reddy Kandati,

¶7

Aged: 49^years, Occ: Seli Emptoyee, R/o. Plot No. 13, Near, Akash Schooi, T.V. Colony,_LIG phase-4, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad-S00070, Telangana State. ...Defendants

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant M.V. KINI Defendants

Exparte CY^*

oA.NO.18/2022

:: qLLqB::

The Applicant Bank^{filedthe presentOA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.57,28,033.sps^{from the defendantsjointlyand} severally with future^interest @^{24o/op.a. withmonthly rests} from 01.08.2021 till the^{dateof realisation alongwith costs and} in default for sale of OA^{hypothecatedvehicles.}

¶14

D1 served summons through^{paper publication, whereasD2} served summons.^{They were} set^{exparteon O7,O9.2O22as} called absent and no^{representation.}

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined N^{chandrasekar,Reginoal} Relationship Manager, as^AW-1 and^{marked19 documents} through him as Ex. A.1 to^{Ex. A.19.}

¶16

Heard the Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bankand perused the} material^placed on record.

¶17

The^point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA aqainst the Defendants and OA schedule hypothecated veh i cles?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte, The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.19 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

7V{^,:"

¶21

oA.NO.18/2022

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.Le/2O22 allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 57,28,033.sps with future interest @ 8,75olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

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 debt;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶26

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

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly,

¶28

C_ommunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. 1::.Tr"9_,f^{,h. steno,corrected,signed andpronorn.Ldbyme in tneopen court} on this the 27"'day of September, 2023) .

¶29

No (MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Tekula Prashanth Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Tekula Prashanth Reddy

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

Central Bank of India versus Messers Cell Point

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr Hmingtha Ntluanga

Chetan Bhimrao Lanjewar versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Devesh Kumar Jaydev Prasad Singh versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Mrs Nibha Devi versus Uco Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Pittala Srinu