Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Bommepalle Jayarami Reddy

DRT4 Dec 2025OA/137/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank applicant's original application for recovery of dues of Rs.26,72,357.78 plus interest and costs against the defendant who remained absent, holding the bank entitled to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs.26,72,357.78 plus future interest and costs; applicant entitled to sell hypothecated vehicle or proceed against defendant's properties.

Icici Bank Limited versus Bommepalle Jayarami Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE O4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 137 OF 2025

¶4

ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, ICICI Towers, Plot No.12 Nanakramguda, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bommepalle JayaRami Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged about Major, Occ: Business R/o. Kopparthi (V), Near Water Tank Sree Ranga Raju Palli, CK Dinne Cuddapah - 516216, A.P.

¶8

...Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj Defendant : Ex-parte

¶10

: ORDER ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.26,72,357.78ps as on 31.12.2024 from the defendant with future interest @24% p.a. with monthly rests from 3L.72.2024 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶12

Summon served on sole defendant through^pp and was set exparte on 06.08.2025 as called absent and no representation.

/'("*

oA.NO.137l2025

The Applicant Bank^{examined Kalva} Raja Yaswanth,^Manager, as AW-1 and marked 08^documents through him as Ex.A.1^to Ex.A.08.

¶17

Ld. Counsel for^{the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passed} on merits. Perused^{the materialplaced on record'}

¶18

The^polnt that arises^{for consideratlon is:-}

¶19

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendant and^{OAhY7othecated} vehicle?

¶20

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remained ex-parte' The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupled with the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to^{A.O8 marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim^{of the Applicant Bank againsttheDefendant-} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendantis liableto pay the OA claimto} the Applicant^{Bank with futureinterestand costs.}

¶21

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.13712025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to^{pay to the} Applicant Bank a sum of^{Rs.26,72,357 .7aps} with future interest @9.05o/o^{p.a. simplefrom} the date of application till^{the date of} realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is^{secured bY way of} hypothecation of vehicle described^{in the} <.hori ta anneved to tha OA and the

¶24

oA.NO.13712025

¶25

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 properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th Day of December, 2025).

¶31

/ (nn[tdsHwAR KorHE) 'i/W"u PRESIDING OFFICER

¶32

Icici Bank Limited v. Bommepalle Jayarami Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Bommepalle Jayarami 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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S. Rainbow Filling Station

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Bogmallo Enterprises Private Limited

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Ms. Antarvedi Tejaswini

Canara Bank versus Sri. N v S Sudheer Kolluru

Csb Bank Limited versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Matrix Lab Tech