Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sreenidhi Enterprises.

DRT22 Apr 2025OA/286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application before the DRT-II Hyderabad, the court reviewed the evidence submitted by ICICI Bank Limited regarding an outstanding loan claim against the respondents. Finding the defendants ex-parte and the evidence conclusive, the court held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,23,99,510.56 with 8.55% p.a. interest; claim secured by mortgaged property; entitlement to proceed against immoveable and moveable properties o

Icici Bank Limited versus Sreenidhi Enterprises. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22NO DAY OF APRIL. 2025

¶3

PRESENT: sH. RAMESHWAR Ko.

¶4

,*.rror,r,[n5irt'.t"fl^{', L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.}

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 286 oF 2024

¶6

ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, JCICI Towers. Serilinga mpa y Mandal, Ran9a Reddy District.

¶7

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶8

.....Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sreenidhi Enterprieses., Rep by its^proprietor

¶11

Pippari Lakshitha, H.No.2- t7 _ L4/ L, Near Saibaba Temple, ?hlr.Tupy.i^{Cotony,Uppat Vi age} And l4andaL Ranga Reddy Dist;ct_500039, tetangana State.

¶12

Also at:-

¶13

Sreenidhi Enterprieses., Rep by _its proprietor pippari Lakshitha, !1..N9.76/97^{-439-7,ptot No.4 & 5,} Venkaiah Nagar, Opp Vasundara Godowns, Bellary Road, Kurnool-S1BO04, Andhra^pradesh.

¶14

Mrs. Pippari Lakshitha, D/o.Narayana Madipally, Age 38 Years, Occ: Business, H.No,2- 77 -t4/ 7, Near Saibaba Temple, Dharmapuri Colony, Uppat Village And Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-500039, Telangana State.

¶15

Mr.Pippari Ashok Kumar, S/o.Mr.pippari, Age Major, Occ: Business, ,flyg ..., A','"

¶16

oA.NO.286/2024

¶17

¶18

u t\t^ )-17 -14l,^{Near saibaba TemPle'} lm'f""L:l'-::!:'^{-'JJ.1l Xl'li.li'uooo} "' Telangana^State'

¶19

... Defendants

¶20

: M/s^{M V KINI} Counsel^{for the Applicant}

¶21

:Ex-Parte

¶22

Defendants

¶23

The sum^Applicant of^{Rs.1,23,99'510 Bank filed the '56ps present as on OA for 02 the O5'2024 recovery from a totalthe} i"r""**,^{jointlyand severally with future interest @18o/o p'a'} with^{monthlyrestsfrom 19 052024till the dateof realization} ,a", -*^{costs and in default for sale of OA scheduleproperty'}

¶24

z. Summons ir"." .",^{served ex-parte on on D1 27 to 3 '12'2024 through as paper publication' called absentand Theyno} rePresentation'

¶25

Area

¶26

The^{Applicant Bank examinedK'Rajayashwanth '} Relationship^{Manager' as AW-1 and marked 10 documents} through^{himas Ex A'1 to Ex A'10'}

¶27

Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bankreported orders may be} passed through^{merits Perused the material placed on record'}

¶28

The^{point that arises for considerationis:-}

¶29

Bank is^entitled Whether^{the APPlicant} the OA^against for the^{claim madein} OA^schedule the Defendants^and n>'.ouf propertY?

¶30

¶31

oA.NO.2A6/2024

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Amdavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.1O marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Application No.2g612024 is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs,1,23,99,510.56ps as on 02.05.2024 with future interest @8.55% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶35

ii) the OA clalm is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶36

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

¶37

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt or tnis orderp$vr,

¶39

oA.NO.285/2024

¶40

o Issue^{Recovery Certificate accordingly'}

¶41

mmunicate

¶42

1. co m^{m u n i cate}^{a copv} " r tll:^:j*l ::"^{jl; jS} H^".'" ::Ll#t; y t ;':l;.;:il p.,-r".:"a by me in the open court^on

¶43

(Dictated^{to. the steno'} :"1""t::' in'rii"^{,r"t DaY of APril' 2025)'}

¶44

H(.,'t$"' EsHWAR^KorHE) piiisrorruc oFFIcER

Icici Bank Limited v. Sreenidhi Enterprises.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sreenidhi Enterprises.

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

Smt Jhansi Garikipati Rep by her Gpa Holder G Adiseshaiah versus Hdfc Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aqua Steel

Yes Bank Limited versus Bhupathi Chandu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Sanjeev Katiyar

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs.P Geethanjali

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Lakshmi Kantha Reddy Minerals.