Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Kasapogu Mariyamma

DRT20 Nov 2023OA/277/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank Limited's application for recovery of Rs. 21,98,193.91plus future interest and costs from the defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable based on ex-parte evidence.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are ordered to pay Rs. 21,98,193.91 with future interest at 12.75% p.a. along with costs, and the bank may proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Kasapogu Mariyamma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAI4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 277 OF 2022

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No. 12, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrlct. Rep. by its Power of Attorney.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Kasapogu Mariyamma, W/o. Mutyale, Aged: 33 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.3-160, Gadwal Mandal, Anantpur, Near Gandhi Chowk, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar, Telangana-509125.

¶8

Smt. Kasapogu Beechupally, S/o. Edanna Chinaa, Aged: 62 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 3-150, cadwal Mandal, Anantpur, Near Gandhi Chowk, Gadwal, Mahaboob Nagar, Telangana-509125

¶9

..Oefendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. R. Rajendra^prasad Defendants : Exparte eWO

¶11

oa.No.271 12022

¶12

;: ORDER::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a sum of Rs.21,98,193.91ps as on 28.O2.2O22 from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @ 24olo p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶14

Summons served on D1 & 2. They were set exparte on 28.O9.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Sathish Kumar. Manappuram, as AW-1 and marked 9 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.9.

¶16

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits. 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 against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶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.9 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 futur!, interest and costs. -,5-,"t1

¶20

oa-No.27712022

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.277 /2022 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,98,193.91ps with future interest @ l2.7So/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

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 entiued to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶24

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

¶25

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶26

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

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 this the 20- Day of November,2023) .

¶29

(MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Kasapogu Mariyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Kasapogu Mariyamma

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

Rbl Bank Limited versus Rajesh Gupta

State Bank of India versus Abhishek Yadav

Punjab National Bank versus Mohit Kumar Arora

Canara Bank versus C K Karigowda

Icici Bank Limited versus Prashanth J

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh Harnek Singh