Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Gogula Balaiah

DRT10 Dec 2025OA/298/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte hearing, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank's application for recovery of a claim of Rs. 31,33,565.94 from Gogula Balaiah with future interest and costs, granting permission for execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 31,33,565.94 with future interest; plaintiff granted costs and right to proceed against defendant's properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Gogula Balaiah — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No: 298 OF 2025

¶5

ICICI BANK LIMITED

¶6

Having its Regional Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No.12, Nanakramguda Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy-500032, Telangana. Rep by its Power of Attorney. .....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sri. Gogula Balaiah, S/o. Gogula Subash Aged about 32 years, Occ: Employee R/o. Adusu Variopalli, Brahmanapalle Gopavaram, Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh-516233. ..,,..Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. R. Rajendra Prasad

¶10

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.31,33,565.94ps as on 03.03.2025 from the defendant^with future interest @24olo p.a. with monthly rests from the date^of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶13

2, Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte^on 09.07.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined K. Rajayaswanth, Area^Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 0{documents through him as^Ex. A.1to Ex. A.08. CY9

¶15

OA.No.298/2025

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

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

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitars in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.08 marked on beharf of the Appricant Bank crinches the craim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hord that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.29gl2025 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a

¶22

sum of Rs.3 1,33,565.94ps with future interest @11.5% p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed aga inst

¶24

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶26

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

¶27

oA.No.298/202s

¶28

9. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

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 loth day of December, 2025).

¶30

dw,* lnemesnvt/nn^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Gogula Balaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Gogula Balaiah

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Akula Vijaya Bhasker

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Nainar Chandrsekhar

P srinivas reddy versus Axis Bank

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Muli Gangi Reddy

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Chigumalla Mallikarjun

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sunmed Hospital