Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Prisha Tractors

DRT30 Apr 2025OA/371/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RDT-II Hyderabad allowed the bank's application for recovery of over Rs. 59 lakh as a joint and several loan liability from an automobile dealership and its partners. Liability was established on unchallenged documentary evidence after respondents waived procedural rights.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1 to 3 ordered to pay Rs. 59,99,741.26 plus future interest and costs to the applicant bank.

Icici Bank Limited versus Prisha Tractors — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 371 OF 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

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

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

Prisha Tractors Rep by its Managing^partners Yadav Srithan,^yadav Gangaram Sy. No. 76, Sirsilta Road Kamareddy-so3111, TG

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Prisha Tractors - Rep by its Managing Partners -^yadav Srithan, Yadav Gangaram, H. No. 11-112, Venkateswara Colony Mamdipalli Village, Armour Nizamabad Dist. 503 224, TG

¶11

Yadav Srithan S/o Yadav Gangaram H. No. 11- 1/2 Venkateswara Colony Mamdipalli Village, Armour Nizamabad Dist. 503 224. TG

¶12

ft,"*

¶13

oa.371,lZO24

¶14

Yadav Gangaram H. No. 11- U2 Venkateswara Colony Mamdlpalli Village, Armour Nizamabad Dist. 503^{224, f G.}

¶15

... .. Defendants.

¶16

Counsel for Applicant :1.4r. G. Adrian Kiran^Raj. Defendants 1 and 2 : No representation. Defendant No.3 :Exparte.

¶17

:: ORDER I:

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA for the recovery of a} sum of Rs.59,99,74!.26Ps^{jointly and severally from the} defendants with future interest @24olo^{per annumfrom} 24,06.2024 till the date of^{realisationalong with costs.}

¶19

The averments of applicant bank as^{per the OA, briefly, are that} defendant No.1 is a^partnership firm and^{defendants 2 and 3} are its^partners. Being the dealer of^Mahindra &^Mahindraand Swaraj Division CLB, defendant No.1 availed over draft^facility to a tune of Rs,50,00,000/- vide credit arrangement^letter dated 19.08.2022. Defendants executed all the^{requisiteloan} documents. However, defendants failed to maintain the financial discipline in repaying the loan dues despite^persistent requests, letters and notices including recall notice dated 03.05.2024. The irregularities in repayment of loan amounts on the^part of the defendants tantamount to wilfu-l default. Hence, the present oA. }ry**

¶20

oa,l7tl2o24

¶21

Defendants l and 2 entered appearance through Advocate, Mr. D. Raghavulu, but did not choose to file written statement. Defendants right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 03.01.2025.

¶22

Defendant No.3 was set exparte vide docket order dated 17.L0.2024.

¶23

Applicant Bank examined N. Chandrashekar, Regional Relationship Manager as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.13.

¶24

Contesting defendants right to adduce evidence was forfeited on 09.04.2025.

¶25

Applicant counsel filed written arguments. Contesting defendants right of arguments forfeited vide docket order dated ?L.04.2025. Perused the written arguments filed by the applicant bank and the material placed on record.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants?

¶28

As stated supra, while defendant No.3 remained exparte, the defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to pursue the case right from the stage of flling written statement to the stage of advanclng arguments. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Amdavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.13 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Accordingly, applicant bank .tT9-,,ut-q

¶29

/ j,/^/\*

¶30

oA.371/2024

¶31

cinches claim against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay the claim made by the Applicant Bank in the O.A. with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.37U2O24 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.59,99,741.26ps to the applicant bank with future interest @60lo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

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

¶35

iii) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

t2. Issue Recovery Certiflcate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Web Portal.

¶39

(Dicated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 306 day ofApril,2025).

¶40

firy**# (C*fiESHwAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Prisha Tractors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Prisha Tractors

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

Sri Devineni Baswa Narendra Babu versus Union Bank of India

Venkat Ram Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Santosh Kumar Gumpanpally versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Vakkuntula Srikanth

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Annapanedi Ramanaiah

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Chimakurthi Nvdss Ram Kumar