Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Narapaka Rajesh

DRT16 Apr 2024OA/801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by ICICI Bank against two defendants for the recovery of Rs. 68,83,512/- plus interest and costs, holding the debt recovered based on depositions and documents filed despite defendants being absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 68,83,512/- with 10.10% simple interest. Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendant properties for recovery.

Icici Bank Limited versus Narapaka Rajesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

[r.io'so'',

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II^{AT HYDEMBAD}

¶3

DATED THIS rHE 16th DAY oF^APRIL,2024

¶4

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.L.B.(HONS.), M.A.}

¶5

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^NO. 801^{OF 2022}

¶7

ICICI Bank Limited Gachibowli, ICICI Towers, Serilingampally^Mandal, Ranqa Reddy District, Rep by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney

¶8

...........Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Narapaka Rajesh
S/o. Muthyalu Narapaka,
Aged:27, Occ: Business,
R/o.11-21- 1828, NTR Nagar,
L.B. Nagar, Sa roornaga r,
R.R. District-Tela ngana-7 4
[8 xr zl.o' tc'l or Ar'
z. ltarapaxa(5JE) p'a a&t"t' L 'r"'del 4oJ4 =o'2e.2 o "t '
S/o. M uthya-'lEtrla ra pa ka,
Aged :43, Occ: Business,
H.No: 72-13-677 187, Lane N0.2, dry,o"
Street No. 1r-Kimty Colony,
Tranaka, S+drabad-Telangana-17
Also at:
Narapaka Pradeep Kumar,
S/o. Muthyalu Narapaka,
Aged :43, Occ: Business,
Rl06-526/t, Ramnagar,
Near Mysamma Temple,
Nalgonda, Tela nga n a- 508207. Defenda nts.
Counsel for the Applicant 14r. G. Adrian Kiran Raj
Defenda nts
e,-oa*e./(:,t

oA.NO.801/2022

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s.19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.68,83,512l- jointly and severally from the defendants together with interest @24o/o p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedu le hypothecated vehicle.

¶16

Summons served on D2 through paper publication. He was set ex-parte on 72.04.2023. No representation for D1, WS not filed, hence right of WS of D1 is hereby forfeited. He was set ex-parte on 09.06,2023, as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined N. Chandrasekar, Regional Relationship l.4anager as AW-1 and marked 15 documents throuqh him as Ex. A.1 to Ex.A.15.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the applicant bank reported orders may be passed on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA Schedule hypothecated vehicle?

¶21

As stated supra, defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affldavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A1 to A.15 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- liable to^pay l^xo^

¶22

oA.NO.801/2022

¶23

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

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.g01/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 68,83, 5 1 2/- with futu re interest @ 1 0. 1 0o/o p.a. simple from the date of application i.e.,21.09.2022 till the date of realization;

¶26

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 for recovery of its dues;

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April, 2024).

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Narapaka Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Narapaka Rajesh

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Biharilal Greenwood Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Mobile Galaxy

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Kurubara Sanna Mallappa

Sofikul Mandal versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Mr.Kolli Naga Krishna Prasad

Icici Bank Limited versus Cherumeedi Raghuveera Varma