Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Madhavarao Guntipalli

DRT27 Jul 2023OA/209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank applicant's original application for recovery of a loan sum from the defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable with interest and costs, and confirming the security by hypothecation.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 29,44,649.01 with interest at 9.89% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendants' properties; costs awarded.

Icici Bank Limited versus Madhavarao Guntipalli — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 27TH DAY OF ]ULY, 2023}

¶3

PRESENT: RAMESHWHAR^{KOTHE, B.COM.,LL.B.(HONS.),M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application'^{No: 209 of 2022}

¶5

Between:

¶6

ICICI Bank^Limited Gachi Bowli^Branch ICICI Towers SerilingamPallY^Mandal Ranga Reddy^District Represented bY^its Authorised Signatory. """Applicant'

¶7

And

¶8

Mr.Madhavarao^GuntiPalli, S/o.AYYanna GuntiPalli, Age 48 Years, Occ:^{SelfEmPloYee,} R/o.P.No. 1368-1369,^{F.No' 102,} Sri Sai CrYstal^ResidencY, Pragathi, KukatPallY, Hyderabad-500090, Telangana^State.

¶9

Mrs.Guntipalli Vengamma, W/o.Shivaramaiah, Aged about 43 Years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.P.No. 1368-1369, F.No. 102, Sri Sai Crystal ResidencY, Pragathi, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500090, Telangana^State.

¶10

....... Defendants.

¶11

: M.V.Kini Counsel for the Applicant Defendants : Exparte /Y,u

¶12

o A.2O9 /2022,

¶13

:: o R D E R ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the above OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.29,44,649.01ps as on LL.OL.2022 joinUy and severally from the Defendants with future interest @ 24o/o p,a. with monthly rests from 11.02.2022 till the date of realization with costs, and in default, for sale of OA schedule assets.

¶15

Summons served on D1 and 2. The defendants were set exparte on 21.09.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Mr.Chandra Shekar, Zonal Debt Manager, as AW.1 and marked 9 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9.

¶17

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused

¶18

the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arise for consideration is:

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank /s entiiled to the claim made in OA against the defendants and the OA schedule assetsz

¶21

As stated supra, the defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit of AW1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.9 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hord that the Defendants are jointry and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank the claim made in oA with future interest ana costs.V/$gi.>fr

¶22

oA.209/2022

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.209/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.29,44,649.01ps with further interest @ 9.89o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till reallzation;

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA, and the applicant bank is entltled to^proceed against the same to realise its dues;

¶26

iii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the Defendants towards realization of its dues; and

¶27

iv) the Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA, Including the Advocate fee.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

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 27th day of July, 2023).

¶31

K,,' ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Madhavarao Guntipalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Madhavarao Guntipalli

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

Idbi Bank versus M/s Smartway Group

Union Bank of India versus Umesh

Idbi Bank versus Sushanta Kumar

State Bank of India versus Buta Singh

Ms Govindraj Traders through Its Prop Shri Vijay So Vinayak Keshattiwar versus State Bank of India

Ms Dhanshri Lal Hira Hari Patanjali Jila Vitarak Kendra and Ors. versus State Bank of India