Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Aslam

DRT27 Jul 2023OA/788/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 788/2022 by ICICI Bank Ltd. against two defendants ex-parte. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed sum, secured by hypothecation of a vehicle, with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 73,42,394.20 with future interest and costs; OA claim secured by hypothecation of vehicle; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY,²⁰²³

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application NO: 788^OF 2022

¶4

ICICI Bank Ltd., Gachibowli, ICICI Towers, Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rep by its Power of Authorized Slgnatory And Power of Attorney Holder.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Mohd Aslam S/o. Mohd Khasim, Aged 41^years, Occ: Business, R/o.8-1-133/17, Flat No: 202 2no Floor, SMP Resdinecy, Gouri Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad-11.

¶8

Mr. Mohd Dawood, S/o. Mohd Khasim , Aged 35^years, Occ: Business, No.8-l-733/77,^{Flat No: 202 2Floor,} SMP Resdinecy, Gouri Nagar, old Bowenpally, Hyderabad-11,

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

iounsel for the Applicant : Mr. G. A/aan Kiran Raj Defendants : Exparte

/fu.."
1,,' ''1"

oA No.788/2022

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 73,42,394,20/- as on 26.05.2022 from the defendants joinuy and severally with future interest @ 24olo p.a. with monthly rests from 01.08.2021 till the date of realisation along with costs,

¶16

Summons served on Dl to 2 through paper publication, they were set exparte on 2O.O1.2O23 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined N. Chandrashekar, Regional Relationship Manager, as AW-1 and marked 18 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.18.

¶18

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

¶19

The^point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entided for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA mentioned hypothecated Vehicte?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents Viz., Exs. A.1 to A.18 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 Iiable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs. 0Y"'''

¶22

OA No.788/2022

¶23

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.788/2022is} allowed as under:^-

¶24

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{ApplicantBanka sum of} Rs.73,42,394,2Ol- with future^interest@ 9.25o/o P.a. simple from the^dateof application till the date^{of realization;}

¶25

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;}

¶26

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

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶28

.,.

¶29

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

¶30

q Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this^{order to the partiesconcerned.}

¶32

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, siSned and^pronounced by me in the open^courton thisthe 27h dayof July, 2023).

¶33

Dw"*

¶34

(ni(rqesxwnn xorne) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Aslam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Aslam

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

Idbi Bank versus M/s Smartway Group

Union Bank of India versus Umesh

Idbi Bank versus Sushanta Kumar

State Bank of India versus Buta Singh

Ms Govindraj Traders through Its Prop Shri Vijay So Vinayak Keshattiwar versus State Bank of India

Ms Dhanshri Lal Hira Hari Patanjali Jila Vitarak Kendra and Ors. versus State Bank of India