Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Pathlavath Bujji

DRT18 Sept 2023OA/685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by ICICI Bank for recovery of outstanding dues from the respondents. The claims, including principal, interest, and costs, were established via documentary evidence as respondents appeared ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 20,96,780.00 plus future interest at 12% p.a. and costs; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Pathlavath Bujji — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

,,oRIGINAL:'

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶3

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

¶4

Original Applicatlon No: 685 OF 2022

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No. 12, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy-500032, Telangana State.

¶6

Rep by its Power of Attorney

¶7

....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pathlavath Buji C/o. Pathlavath Bahadu

¶10

Aged: 42 Years, Occ: Business,

¶11

R/o. H. No.4-16, N/R Main Road, Balanagar Mandal, Kushanguda Thanda, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana State-509202.

¶12

Sri. Pathlavath Bahadur, S/o. Pathlavath Laxman, Aged: 44 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 7a-2o4lf/A, Shadnagar, Eshwar Colony, Farooq Na9ar, Mahaboobnagar, Telangana State, Pin:509223.

¶13

Sri. Rathlavath Valya, S/o. Rathlavath Ghasya, Aged: 39 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. 1-55, Pedda Adiryal Mulastambam Thanda, Mahaboobnagar, Telangana State, Pin:509302.

¶14

...Defendants

¶15

oA.NO.68S/2022

¶16

Counsel for the^APPlicant

¶17

lYr. R. Rajendra Prasad

Defendants

Exparte

:: qLLLR::

The Applicant^{Bankfiledthe present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.20,96,780^{OOps as on 31.05.2022from the} defendants^jointly and severally^{with future interest@ 24olo} p.a. with monthly rests from the^date of^{OA till the date of} realisation along with^{costs and ln defaultfor sale of OA} hypothecation of^vehicle.

¶22

Summons served^{on D1} to^{3 throughpaper publication.They} were set exparte on^{74.03,2023as called absentand no} representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank^{examinedSathish Kumar, Zonal Debt} Manager, as AW-1^{and marked 15 documentsthrough him as} Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.15.

¶24

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

¶25

The point that arises^{for considerationis:-}

¶26

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made^{in the oA against} the Defendants^{and OAhypothecation} of vehicle? ffi,t

¶27

oA.NO.685/2022

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants^{remainedex-parte.The} Evidence Amdavit coupled^with the^{recitals in thedocuments} viz., Exs. A.1 to A.15^{marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim^{of the ApplicantBankagainst the Defendants} Hence, I hold that the Defendants^{are jointly and severally liable} to^pay the OA claim to^{the Applicant Bankwith future interest} and costs.

¶29

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.685/2022is} allowed as under:^-

¶30

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.20,96,780.00ps with future interest @12olof.Fimple^{from the date of application} till the date of realization;

¶31

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 entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

ffi^*

oA. o.68s/2022

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

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Cimmunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the steno, (orrected, signed and pronorrcea Uy mu in tf,e open lorn on this the 18"'day of September,2O2ll.

¶41

fu* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Icici Bank Limited v. Pathlavath Bujji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Pathlavath Bujji

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

Sanjaykumar Dayaram Gayakvad versus Bank of Baroda

Atulkumar Gondaliya Others versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shri Nath Marbles

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Krishan Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Chanan Singh

Canara Bank versus Sri Lakshmi Foils