Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Muddada Lokesh

DRT16 Aug 2023OA/325/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowed the Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Limited against two defendants. The court held that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 22,53,550 along with interest and costs based on examined evidence and documents. The bank is entitled to recover the debt from the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 22,53,550 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Muddada Lokesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS^{THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST,2023}

¶2

PRESENT: SH.^{MMESHWARKOTHE, B.COM,L.LB' (HONS'), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application^{NO: 325 OF 2022}

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited, Gachibowli,^{ICICI Towers,} Serilingamapally^Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Represented by^{its Authorized Signatory} And Power of Attorney^holder.

¶5

,'' "" "APplicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Mr. Muddada Lokesh, S/o. Rambabu Muddada Aged; 26 Years, occ: Self^Employee, R/o. 3-3-238, Chappla^{Bazar, Kachiguda,} Near VeeraPPa Yadav^Marg, Hyderabad-500027, Telangana^State.

¶8

Mr. Battila Bala Mahendar, S/o. Laxmaiah Battila, Aged: 45 Years, Occ: Service, No.^{4-7-52,Pochamma Basthi,} Opposite Ambedkar Statue, Hayathanagar, Hyderabad-501505, Telangana State.

¶9

.......Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : lvl.V.Kini Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-Parte Awrm-.." / /,/ \ -'-.\2 -Y rb'b

OA No.32Sl2O22

ORDER

The Appticant Bank flted the sum of Rs. 22,s3,sso /^_ ". "" T:l::; ?:HJ"TJ,:]::,:

¶15

jointly and severally to pay with future interest @ 24ok p.at. with monthly rests from at 18.03.2022 ti the date of realization along with costs.

¶16

Summons served on D1 through paper publication, wheras summons served on D2.The Defendants was set exparte on 16.7t.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Chandrasekhar, Regional Relationship Manager as AW_1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank, perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:

¶20

Whether the Appticant Bank is enti ed tor the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA mentio-ned

¶21

hypothecated vehicle?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally

¶23

fZw*,,-,,-// /^{</sup> -,-.;)) C,/ -*t6}

¶24

OA No.325/2022

¶25

¶26

liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the^present Original Application^{No.325l2022is} allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.22,53,550/- with future interest @ 13olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, si8ned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16rh day ofAugust,2023) .

¶34

(or' (RAI{ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Muddada Lokesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Muddada Lokesh

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 Langei International

Uco Bank versus Smt Anju Rani Ghosh

Jagranath Chaudhary and Another versus Punjab National Bank

Paramjeet Singh versus Idbi Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Satish Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Dilip Kumar Singh & Anr.