Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud

DRT14 Aug 2025OA/287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 26,40,300.80 plus interest against a defendant who remained in absentia. The claim was upheld based on documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 26,40,300.80 with future interest; permission to proceed against defendant's properties; costs awarded to applicant.

Icici Bank Limited versus Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST,²⁰²⁵

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 287 OF 2025

¶5

ICICI Bank Limited., Gachibowli, ICICI Towers Serilihgampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

¶6

.'...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud S/o. Maragoni Satyanarayana Goud Age Major, Occ: Business, H.No.16-6-597 Osman Pura, Near Sikh Building Chaderghat, Charminar, Near Sikh Building Hyderabad-500024, Telangana State.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Mr. Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud S/o. Maragoni Satyanarayana Goud C/o.Genpact India Private Limited IDA, uppal, Hyderabad-500039,Telangana State.

¶11

......Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. M.V.Kini Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

:: :: !!_f,[ff,

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.26,40,300,80ps as on 03.03.2025 from the defendant^with future interest @24olo^p.a. from t^q date of application till the date of realisation along with ,ot.t,. frW.o;'

¶15

OA.I{o.287202-5

¶16

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endOrsement Refused, hence deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on

¶17

13.06.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Kalva Rajayaswanth, Area Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked O7 documents througl.l him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.28712025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.26,40,300.80ps as on 03.03.2025 with future interest @ 10.650/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of rcatization; /ry#f

¶25

¶26

OA.No.2A7 /2025

¶27

ii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for

¶28

realization of its dues;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14rh day ofAugust, 2025) .

¶33

Ks"tp-q

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING O FFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud

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

M/s. Ayurda Buildcon Rep. by Managing Partner Mr. Kalikiri Sriniketh Reddy versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Utukuru Narendera Kumar Reddy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Subhan Polymers Rep by Its Proprietor

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sri Balaji Granites

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Om Namashivaya Enterprises

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Rathod Mangulall