Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Pothireddy Prathap Reddy

DRT15 Dec 2023OA/409/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application dated December 15, 2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank Ltd.'s claim against two defendants for a sum of Rs. 22,49,790.64 with future interest and costs, holding them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 22,49,790.64 with future interest @ 8.54% p.a., costs, and recovery certificate to be issued to allow the bank to proceed against persons and properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Pothireddy Prathap Reddy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE^{15th DAY OF DECEMBER,2023}

¶2

PRESENT: SH.^{MMESHWARKOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons'), !l A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application^{No:4O9 OF 2022}

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited, Branch Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized^Signatory& Power bf Attorney Holder. ""^Applicant'

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pothireddy^{Prathap Reddy,} S/o. Pothireddy^{Rama Subba Reddy,} Aged: 59 Years, Occ:^Service,

¶7

#2-5, Belum, Near^{Vinayaka Temple,} Kolimi Gundla Mandalam, Kurnool-518122

¶8

Dandu sheshudu S/o. Madduledti Dandu, Agedi 47 Years,^{Occ: Business,} l-263-4lD, Near Power^Station NGO colony, BanganaPalli, Kurnool District.

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Defendants

¶12

: Mr. B. Praveen Kumar

¶13

: Exparte

¶14

:: qLLLE ::

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recoverya total} sum of Rs.22,49 ,79O.64ps from the defendants^{jointly and}

¶16

S,.,'"

¶17

oa.No,4Os/2022

¶18

severally with future trom 7s.r2.2o2r,,,, ,nlt:l"ttt-^{t24o/op'a' with monthlv} rests e date of rearization arong with costs.

¶19

1. summons served on Refused, hence o"ua"ao.' .and^{2 returnedwithendorsement} Thev were set exparte on

¶20

13'os'2022". *,,"0 sent and no representation.

¶21

"J-t-"^,ol-t-"rved'

¶22

"J-t-"^,ol-t-"rved'

¶23

1. The Applicant Bank e) ,u chandra shekar, Resionar

¶24

Rerationship Manaser,t::'i:: and marked e documents

¶25

throueh him as Ex. A.1,"":-:l;i

¶26

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported order may be passed on merits. perused the material ,,"a"0 """."a*r.r,

¶27

¶28

5, The point that arises for consideration is;_

¶29

Whether the ,, Bank is enti ed for the claim4pplicant the Defendan{;de^{in the OA against}

¶30

As stated supra, the t

¶31

remained ex-parte' The Evidence Affidavit .oro,",'"t"n'untt the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.9 .u.l l'tn jr,onfl :: :i,H, j::,;:r,l:J:"',i:: cr in ch es th e o",,, ",,n" ^ Hence, I hotd that the Defe are jointlv and severallv liable to pav the oA craim ," ,nJ1",':: : Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present I original Application No'409/2022 is

¶33

alowed as under: -

¶34

i) ]he Defendants are joinfly and severaly liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.22,49,79o.64ps with future interest @ S,/'rr,,r'!

¶35

oa.No./$9/2022

¶36

8.54olo simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶37

ii) the applicant bank is entiHed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶38

iii) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶39

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost [4emo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the st€no, corrected, signed and pronorn."a Uy ." in tt," op"iiorn on this the 15"' Day of December,2023)

¶42

dY,"* (MMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Pothireddy Prathap Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Pothireddy Prathap Reddy

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

V P Rasheed versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Arup Saikia

Ms Hotel Arya Lodging and Boarding versus Gandhibagh Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur

Ms India Collection versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Krishan Kumar

Fathima Bind versus The Kottakkal Co. operative Urban Bank Ltd.