Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Naveen Goud Tegulla

DRT27 Sept 2023OA/762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank Ltd.'s original application against two defendants for recovery of Rs. 1.48 crore along with future interest, as defendants were absent and evidence established joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,48,64,870/- with future interest; OA claim secured by hypothecated assets; entitlement to proceed against assets and realize costs.

Icici Bank Limited versus Naveen Goud Tegulla — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAO DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.). M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Original Application No: 762 OF 2022

¶3

ICICI Bank Limited, Gachibowti, ICICI Towers. Serilingampally Mandat. Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder,

¶4

.....Applicant

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Naveen Goud Tegulla, S/o Mallaiah Goud Tequ a Aged: 39 v"u.r, o.., 3lili..,ri." No. 9-2-2A7/7, near Malika Boys Hiqh Schoot. Langer.house, Main Road, Rang; Re;Jy;-^--, Hyderabad -Telangana-8,

¶7

Also At: Naveen Goud Tegulla, S/o. Mallaiah Goud Tegulla, Aged: 39 years, Occ: s-service, R/o. 9_-1-368/1, Langer House, Main Road, Opp: Bawarchi, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad- Telangana-8,

¶8

Venkatesg Goud Tegulla, (qrop) Veerabhadra Swamy Tours Travels, S/o/ Mallaiah Goud, Aged: 50 o.J,il;i';,-R/"1';i:;;ii,"u"' /ryp

¶9

oa No.76212022

¶10

¶11

Near Malika Boys Hiqh School, Langer house, Main Road, Ranga^Reddy, Hyderabad-Telangana-08,

¶12

Also At: Venkatesg Goud Tegulla, (prop) veerabhadra swamy tours travels, s/o Mallaiah Goud, Aged: 50^years, occ: Business, R/o. 9-1-365/1/A1, Langer house, main road, opp: Bawarchi, RangaReddy,Hyderabad-Telangana-o8, ....Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G. A.KIMN RAJ Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-Parte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Appllcant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,48,64,87O/^- frcm the defendants^jointly and severally as on 78.07.2022 with future interest @ 24o/o^p.a. monthly rests from date of application till the date of realizatlon along with costs and in default for sale of OA hypothecated assets.

¶16

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set exparte on 22.72.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Mr.N.Chandrasekar, Regional Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 20 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.20.

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits.^perused the materiat placed on record. fu(fr

¶19

¶20

OANo.T6ZlZoZz

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:

¶22

Whether.the Applicant Bank is entiiled ror tne cbim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothZcated assefs2

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.20 marked on beharf of the Appricant Bank crinches the craim 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 future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No,762/2O22is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of

¶26

Rs.L,48,64,870/-against all the defendants with further interest @ 14.05o/o p.a. simple from the date of OA to till the date of realization;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

OA^No.76212022

¶30

¶31

iv)^{the applicant bank is entltled for the costs'}

¶32

The Applicant^{Bank is directedto file Cost Memowithin 2} weeks^{from the date of receipt of this Order'}

¶33

Issue^{Recoverycertificateaccordingly'}

¶34

10.^{Communicatea copy of this order to the parties}

¶35

concerned -..--^r^{h- main rhe ooencourton}

¶36

lDictatedtothesteno,corrected,slgnedandpronouncedbYmeintheopencour tis tfre zlt^{day ofseptember'2023)}

¶37

//ry6*" , Kr"tesnwrn^xorse) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Naveen Goud Tegulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Naveen Goud Tegulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus Messers Cell Point

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr Hmingtha Ntluanga

Chetan Bhimrao Lanjewar versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Devesh Kumar Jaydev Prasad Singh versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Mrs Nibha Devi versus Uco Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Tekula Prashanth Reddy